The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hi All,

Via a long and winding road, Rocky's original manuscript, WIPEOUT, is finally done and published. Now titled THE BEACH BOYS' ENDLESS WAVE, its up on Amazon Books.
I wanted you all to know about this for a bunch of reasons, the most surprising of which is that I ended up authoring this with Rocky. I'm pleased and honored to be included in the project and I have the Smile board in many ways to thank for it. It was the interest in the project from this very site that inspired me to get involved.
Rocky and I have asked the publisher to give the members a discount through the site if they are interested.
Check it out on the Amazon page. Scroll down and read the description and let us know. I know this can be a tough crowd and this is sort of like "leading with the chin" but we worked long and hard to create something that members would be interested in reading.
I'm hoping my Momma didn't raise no dummies so please have a look.

Ron

I bought it and read it. I’ll admit it is entertaining and interesting but I wish it didn’t leave such a bitter aftertaste-the portrayal of Dennis and Carl are almost wholly negative (Mike only positive). Obviously this is Rocky’s experiences but the book needs some balance. A few tacked on words about how Carl And Dennis were not that bad just didn’t cut it

I see the book went from 35 chapters (the titles of which Rocky originally posted on this board) to 28. He also posted some excerpts. Does the text in the current book bear much resemblance to the excerpts posted here around three years ago? At one point Rocky described the book as the autobiography of his friend Steve Love. Would you still characterize it as such? What was Steve Love's level involvement in the book?

I'm pleased to hear you found the book "entertaining and interesting." Thanks for that.
We certainly did not mean to leave a negative portrayal of Dennis and Carl. I'm a little surprised that that is the result for you.

Dennis was a tragic figure by any standards, all that talent destroyed by drugs. No way to whitewash that. It's just the way it went.
As for Carl, things went down a certain way, the reader can judge for themselves. Thanks for getting the book in any case.

I'm sure Rocky would like to weigh in on this topic. Do you know how he could be allowed back on the site, what he'd have to do to get back on?

Ron

By the way, how'd you like the pictures? Most were from Stan Love's private collection. He was very kind to let us use them.
Ron

Yes some good photos-though some are miscaptioned. The photo of Brian In a help me Rhonda shirt smoking “reefer” is from the 1970s not the mid 60s and there is a photo of Brian, Carl and Steve labeled 1978 that is clearly from the late 1980s not 1978

With all due respect(to you), there isn't a chance in hell of him ever being allowed back bere. He was permanently banned from this board, with good reason. You might want to take a look through his posting history to get an idea of why he's not welcome here.

So this HUNK O' POOP 'booklette' from one of the sorriest [and clearly insignificant] bystanders in the history of the Beach Boys has sadly oozed to the surface for its 15 minutes of well clouded-over daylight?

What a shame it is that the gutless somehow garner attention, entirely after the fact, when all they really deserve is to be completely ignored.

Let that coward back in here to pump his jaded and tainted view?  Not a chance.  I vote unequivocally NO!!!

Unless I'm mixing up discussions from a few years ago, or maybe it was something Stan wrote independent of this book, but wasn't there supposed to be some more detailed information on Mike's early 90's song credit lawsuit and some possible behind-the-scenes activities and details related to that case? I seem to remember some posts asking for more info after the topic was mentioned and it kept coming back as replies suggesting "wait for the book"...Is there any info on that topic and the lawsuit in this book or would that be something else?

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/can-dead-people-defamed/

I haven't read the new book, but as a general rule, the above is always worth keeping mind when a book delves into both deceased and still-living individuals. It's easier to be much more "honest" about deceased individuals.

No the book does not go into the copyright thing.  It is mainly about his year and a half minding Brian and his few subsequent interactions with the BBs

Rocky got the "book" published?  This is a bad dream, right?

Just went on Amazon and read the product description for the book - says the band. led by Mike, was fighting off the British Invasion in 1976!  Geez, that was a LONG British Invasion!  And the two book reviews are obviously written by Rocky himself.  This is a bad dream...

Yeah - even the Bay City Rollers "invasion" was over by late '76!

You dummies...’The Beach Boys’ we’re head to head with ‘The Sex Pistols’ in 76.

Calling yourselves fans.  ;)


http://www.eastportlandblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/BrianWilsonJohnnyRotten.jpg

Thanks for the info on the pics. That was the information we received on them. The dim and distant past, eh.

Ron

Actually the book reviews were NOT written by Rocky. But this is what "leading with your chin" gets ya. Why don't you read it and actually see what you think of the book?
Like I said, Rocky and I got the publisher to agree to give the Smile site a discount. You guys and this site are in fact, special to the evolution of the book into it's present form.
I am quite thankful for all of the enthusiasm, positive and negative.
Ron

Hi Lee,

Clearly, I think you've got it wrong when it comes to Rocky. A flawed individual, like the rest of us, no doubt, but he was there, along with Stan Love, behind the scenes, embedded with the band and Brian for quite some time. You can thank your lucky stars that Stan and Rocky were brought into Brian's life. Their intervention was essential to Brian's recovery. Say what you will, it was that pivotal time that they were there, with Brian, day in and day out, for the better part of 3 years that kept him from slipping into oblivion.
Were you there, living at Brian's house, getting him back in shape to end up writing music, and touring again? How do you think that happened? Check out the "before and after" pics of Brian in the book starting with page 9 where Brian was at 312+ pounds and then on page 33 and 83 when the diligent work and care that went into bringing Brian back
got him back down to under 200.
Have a look at the book before you relegate it to the scrap heap. You may be pleasantly surprised.
You may not, but contempt prior to investigation seems a shallow way to go.
As for letting Rocky back on the site. That's above my pay grade.

Ron

This is a good time to address the Steve Love thing and the embezzlement charges levied against him which I would like everyone to be aware of going forward.
I've seen the court docs. He was exonerated.

Agreed

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23627.msg568651.html#msg568651

Ron,

Since you didn't reply to my earlier questions, I'll ask 'em again and add a few more:

1. The book went from 35 chapters (the titles of which Rocky originally posted on this board) to 28. Does the text in the current book bear much resemblance to the excerpts Mr. Pamplin posted here around three years ago, or was the book partially or completely reworked?

2. At one point Rocky described the book as the autobiography of his friend Steve Love. Would you still characterize it as such? What was Steve Love's level involvement in the book?

3. In his posts of roughly three years ago, Rocky often cast Mike and Stan Love in a negative light, but I see that Stan contributed pics to the book, and Ian says Mike was cast only in a positive light. How do you account for this change? Other than the pictures contributed by Stan, were either he or Mike involved in determining the content of the book?

4. Moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's OK for Ron to post info Rocky told him about the book (eg, "Concerning the book, Rocky told me blah blah blah") as long as Ron does not act as a conduit for Mr. Pamplin to engage in back and forth conversation with members of the board.

5. Ron, I'm assuming you have read Rocky's posts in Rocky Pamplin Book About the Beach Boys? and Is Steve Love a Credible Source? and are thus well aware of the fact that your writing style is completely different from Mr. Pamplin's. Due to a number of his past actions (involving Carl, Dennis, and Marilyn), Rocky received justifiable criticism from members of this board, but he frequently responded with rather juvenile sounding posts and name calling - certainly a poor course of action for someone dealing with people to whom he is hoping to sell his book. How would you characterize Mr. Pamplin's demeanor and personality in your dealings with him?

Custom Machine - a well-written post.  I think you've asked legit questions.  In response to Ron having suggested that I read the book before judging it, my answer is this.  If the book has anything to do with Rocky's version of Beach Boys history, in which Rocky is a self-proclaimed hero and savior of Brian Wilson, the Beach Boys, and the universe in general, I decline the offer.  It sickens me, after having read Rocky's crap on this board a few years ago, to think that there are people who may actually BELIEVE him after reading a book that had his input.

I'll ask my question again, to Ron:

Unless I'm not remembering this correctly (and I can go back to find some of the quotes time-permitting), when Rocky was posting here and teasing the forthcoming book a few years ago, some posters were asking for more details about Mike's songwriting credit lawsuit in the early 90's. I could have sworn there were mentions made of this topic that would be discussed in the book to come, and we'd have to read it for more info.

So now the book has come out, and the lawsuit issues seem to have been chopped out of the final version. If I'm remembering correctly, why was this topic mentioned and teased (whether by Stan or Rocky or whoever else is/was connected) when it's not a part of the book?

What happened in the interim?


And a postscript, I find it both ironic and comical that it seems some were trying a preemptive move to discredit Rocky and/or Stan perhaps because of concerns with the portrayal of Mike based on comments from Stan and Rocky (and Steve), yet the book itself seems to be complimentary of Mike, if anything. Just wondering if those who were launching the preemptive strikes would now backpedal and embrace some of the positive portrayals or if they would stand behind their earlier attempts to discredit Rocky-Stan-Steve and any writings or commentary from them regarding Mike Love.

Let's get Rocky back on the board to answer all these, and other pressing questions!!

And loose all credibility in a banning to promote a dubious book? No need for any further discussion really is there.

Ron, were you a Beach Boys fan before working on the project? What did you see in that thread about the book that made you want to get involved?

Ugh.

One of the most surprising things was that Rocky had in fact, enormous respect for Mike Love in myriad ways, respect that I heard over and over again in those long and rambling conversations. Rocky himself was surprised at what he had revealed. We're hoping that it made for a better read.

Ahh, I'm just getting the hang of this site and how to reply.
Sorry if I confused things in previous posts.

To answer, I was an enormous Beach Boys fan. Their music was a part of the audio history of my life. I knew very little about them, just loved the music.

When I read Rocky's original manuscript I could see there was something there. I didn't particularly like the tone and I came to find out as I've explained elsewhere, that the actual story was much more interesting than what was on the page.
A publisher agreed and then commenced the long and winding road which the book took on its' way to the version now available.

Because I "had no dog in this fight" I was able to help shape the book into what we hope is an insightful and entertaining read.
I came away with nothing but respect for everyone in the book, warts and all. It's a very human story about a bunch of kids that suddenly became international stars, in show business terms, pretty much overnight.

The publisher did not want a book that explored that particular area so we stuck with a more "human" story.

Can you let us know what it says about Carl?  I'm interested, as I've almost never seen anything negative about him.  I don't want to shell out money for this book, for reasons that are probably obvious, but I have to admit I'm curious about this book's spin. 

I just read the foreword, called "Call us the Guardian Angels", which should tell you something right there, on Amazon.  "The Beach Boys stayed alive on the back of Mike Love's charismatic lead singing and hard-working stage presence, becoming widely respected for their constant touring and great concerts". 

Are you ****ing kidding me? 

I guess Carl's singing had nothing to do with it.  Nor did his producing, arranging, guitar-playing or band-leading. 

 Based on that lie alone, I'm now completely assured that I won't waste any time reading this POS.  ::) ::)

As someone over on the other board noted in a somewhat different context:

It's a whole lot easier to dump on the character and reputation of someone who's dead and gone than someone who's "well past 65 and still has the jive"....  :hat

Wow. That could be a bit short sighted. Carl and his enormous contribution to the Beach Boys is well documented in the Book.

Ron

I completely agree. We didn't take any cheap shots at ANYONE in the book. I came away with nothing but respect for all concerned.

Ron

what kind of hot steaming garbage is this? when has pop culture ever embraced Mike as anything more than the awkwardly coordinated, money-loving singer in the band who didn't play an instrument and never knew what to do with his hands? let alone the sole reason the band kept going, considering they "stayed alive" on his back.
I know you wrote a book, and that's cool, but that is straight up not true, especially when Carl has been recognized for decades as the musical director for the touring Beach Boys who worked his ass off to make those shows rock. Mike is not the equivalent of Mick Jagger in the Stones. He is the opposite of Mick Jagger.

It's certainly true what you say about Carl - just listening to the '73 In Concert album, his influence is obvious throughout, especially taking into account how many of those songs were rearranged or reinterpreted and made to work in a live '70s setting. Even when he was sick with cancer, he still led the band onstage, doing all the count-ins and driving the tempo with his guitar (and singing great, to boot). Not mentioning his role in the band's revival, legitimacy and consistent popularity as a live act is neglectful.

However, regarding Mike - everyone is entitled to their opinion, and opinions will always differ on this subject, but watching how he works the stage in the opening sequence of the '76 "It's OK" TV special is evidence of Mike's abilities as a frontman (as opposed to "band leader", which was Carl's role). Even David Leaf acknowledged as much when he wrote in his book, "Mike is the man who makes the live shows work" (while rightfully acknowledging elsewhere in the book how Carl took over the role of onstage leader when Brian quit the road). And when Carl left the group in '81, he spoke of having a newfound respect for Michael and his role. Finally, on the 2012 reunion tour (by which time, of course, Mike was no longer strutting and prancing the stage like he did in his thirties), Brian praised Mike as a great front man (if memory serves, this was in a one-on-one interview, rather than an appearance with Mike and the other guys present - so it's not as if he was simply saying something nice for Mike to hear). The fact that both Carl and Brian, after having toured on their own without Mike, expressed an even greater appreciation of what he brings to the live act, says something.

If you ask me (someone who's studied dozens of live recordings and numerous reviews from this era), there were many factors contributing to the success the Boys enjoyed as a live act in the seventies:  Carl's musical leadership skills, Mike's stage presence, Dennis' stage presence, Al's impeccable singing, the magic of Brian's timeless compositions, and the management skills of first Jack Reiley and then James Guercio.

I will acknowledge that I haven’t read the whole book, just bits on Amazon.  But the sentence I quoted is, you know, a direct quote, in the foreword, which basically sets the tone for the book.  I’m glad that you feel Carl’s contribution is documented elsewhere in the book, but stating that the band stayed alive on the back of Mike’s talents (and not mentioning anything about anyone else) is, in my opinion, very hard to swallow. 

 Yeah-having read the book-I don’t think that you do a great job of making one appreciate Carl-the Carl portrayed in your book is a bit of a sad-sack. Yes there is a tacked on ending-saying he was a good guy-but Rocky’s animosity toward him is quite evident

It's important to remember that for whatever reason, maybe because Carl liked to drink a bit himself that he and Dennis were not overly helpful in keeping booze and drugs away from Brian. Those 2 would be in an adversarial position with regard to Stan and Rocky, so it was only a natural upshot that there would be friction.
I do know that Rocky was aware of the fact that Carl was the musical leader of the band after Brian left and filled those shoes capably.

I agree with jackjachman's post. (he is clearly very knowledgeable). Wish I could have spoken with him at sometime when I was getting up to speed on the larger dynamics he speaks about. My years as a music and band manager gave me a unique perspective about how much more than just what happens on stage contributes to the longevity of a group. Mike Love's steady hand and mediation practice was a large part of the glue that kept the band together day in and day out, year after year, and not just on stage.

In some ways I agree with you. Carl may in fact have been a bit troubled. I never knew the man personally. He was clearly a great musician, but drinking seems to have poisoned his potential along the way.

When Stan and Rocky were on the job, if you helped steer drugs in any way towards Brian, or enabled drugs to head Brian's way by funding Dennis' actions, you could count on  both their animosity. Rocky was a ferocious advocate for Brian and the sequence in Australia is one of my favorite parts of the book. He was, in fact, ferocious to a fault in protecting Brian, and the fallout from that time period had a long lasting effect on Stephen's management tenure.

And you had the audacity to question my associations?  Again...and I quote..."I never knew the man personally."  I did.  Your credibility is questionable at best.  The source of your information is, as he always was, biased.  And your 'take' on cousin Michael is laughable.  You're doing an even worse job of selling books here than the obviously untrustworthy Rocklette did back prior to his 'dismissal'..

Reynaldo, I think if you had known Carl personally, as some of us here did, you'd feel a lot more sympathetic towards him.

I would imagine Al doesn’t get great treatment either .
Stephen I believe called him chickens sh*t for finally voting with Carl and Dennis to end the Love / Love/ Pamplin fiasco

As often is the case-there isn’t much discussion of al in the book

I have not read the book; I was in fact interested in it way back when Rocky was posting about an upcoming book, because it seemed it would be somewhat of a raw, unfiltered insider’s view.

Would it be out of line to ask/wonder if there were parties (not talking about the publisher) who perhaps “encouraged” a direction to be taken, and for other things to be omitted?  

And, not coincidentally, Al Jardine is still alive. It's not a coincidence usually when a book takes deceased people to task more than the living.

I would have liked to have known Carl. He was a great guitar player and singer and had a huge influence on the sound of the band.

We sent a book to Al and are looking forward to his response. He is often overlooked and his influence diminished. Since the book's point of view came from Rocky who was "embedded" at Brian's house, most of the material begins there. Al was a powerful musical influence in his own right, always has been, and in fact, still is.
In many ways, the Wilson brothers and Mike Love received most of the attention just because that's the way the world is and not because of who was deserving of credit. Al was indeed overlooked in many ways. Had to be a bit of a precarious spot for him to be in. The focus fell elsewhere but his guitar playing was integral to the live sound. He was there on stage "laying it down." HE WAS THERE!! Can't take that away from him no matter how fickle the world of the press, etc can be.
Rocky and I talked a lot about the direction the final draft of the book would take along with the editor who was also instrumental in creating the tone. We decided that we didn't want to include certain behind the scenes information. There were many reason, not just the Publisher's request for a certain kind of book, but in my case, a desire to create a book that was more in line with the beauty, joy, and spirit of the Beach Boys' music and their influence. Mention the Beach Boys, and as a friend was saying to me yesterday, a sunny smile of fond remembrance is most often the first response, as in, yeah, loved those guys! We didn't want to mess with that, out of fondness and  respect for the "big picture" of one of the great musical phenomenons out there. Sappy, sure, some could say that, but just maybe that's not a bad thing. In any case that's the direction that often guided us.

I'd like to hear more from the people that have personal stories of knowing the band members. I didn't. I've only been around Brian once, at an Academy screening of "Love and Mercy," where he was on a panel after the screening. What I remember most was that he said the accurate portrayal of Eugene Landy in the pic gave him "the creeps." It was such a sweet, "Brian" thing to say. The guy had some dark times in his life and he seem relieved to have lived through them. Just my impression.

I read the book.  I would imagine Jardine would be pleased to find that he doesn't figure into this particular tale, as written. Nobody comes off very well, including the narrator.
Keep in mind that this is about family relationships - the story is about the Wilson family, not the "Beach Boys" band. Jardine is a Beach Boy, but - as he could probably tell you - he is not a Wilson...

I cold use some help. There was a TV movie made about the Beach Boys broadcast on network TV back around 2000. Has anyone seen this?
It's titled "The Beach Boys An American Family." It was a 2 parter and now it's no longer easily available.
I got a copy from a sketchy website and the quality is bad, but I suspect the movie is really good.
I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts about it and if anyone actually has an accurate copy.
Thanks,
Ron

The 2000 TV movie was *not* received well by fans. The first part wasn't too awful, but the second part was ridiculous and embarrassing. Even the movie's figurehead/producer John Stamos admitted years later in an interview that the movie didn't go over well with some of the BB camp (read: everybody but Mike; and especially Brian). There is even an interview from back around 2000 with Darian Sahanaja detailing Melinda arguing with someone (producers? network?) over the movie and Brian getting stressed about the whole thing.

Setting aside group politics, the second part especially is just way off. Brian comes off like a babbling, drooling idiot, the movie ends on the wrong date (Brian's "comeback" is for no apparent reason shown to be 1974).

There's one infamous scene (from circa '66, so I don't remember if that's part one or two) where the actor playing Mike's glue-on beard is peeling off during a scene, and they just left it in.

There's a Van Dyke Parks interview where he had to call in favors to get them to add a disclaimer to the front of the second part of the film because the guy who was essentially supposed to be VDP (though going by another name) was grossly misrepresented in the film.

I believe others involved in the film ended up regretting participating.

I think there's also a fun story also of Stebbins and Ed Roach visiting the set floating around somwhere.

Apparently, BRI (or at least Capitol) and Brian participated to some degree initially, as they supplied remixed BB tracks and Brian re-recorded a version of "In My Room", but seeing as how Mike was allegedly an informal "advisor" on the film (he and Bruce were the only BBs who went out and promoted the movie with Stamos on talk shows), the film goes off the rails the more it tries to portray Mike as saving the group and Brian as a babbling lunatic frothing at the mouth.

IN PARTICULAR, both Brian and fans were offended at the portrayal of Brian being dismissive and unsupportive of Dennis's music. This was offensive to the Wilson family, and just grossly incorrect considering how much Brian was involved in stuff like Dennis's tracks from "Sunflower."

That Stamos would support putting *that* incorrect garbage in the film, but conveniently avoid things like depicting Brian being strong-armed into not working with Redwood/Three Dog Night, is not surprising.

The movie was never commercially released, but screener VHS copies were made "For Emmy Consideration" (no, I don't believe it won any Emmys), and they are up on eBay from time to time. Here's one now:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-BEACH-BOYS-AN-AMERICAN-FAMILY-2-vhs-videos-FREDERICK-WELLER-KEVIN-DUNN/283275006532?hash=item41f4819244:g:GfwAAOSwBLlVLD8h:rk:1:pf:0

I think the film was aired back around 2012 on cable on the back of the BB reunion.

Here's a 2000 LA Times article touching on the problems with the 2000 movie:

from The Los Angeles New Times 4/6/2000
Heroes and Villains
Brian Wilson's back, recording a live album at the Roxy this week and preparing for a summer tour with symphony orchestras throughout the U.S. So isn't it time to address the lies and half-truths depicted on ABC's recent Beach Boys miniseries?

By Bill Holdship

They say that history belongs to the victors. In the case of the Beach Boys' always strange Southern California saga,  the term boils down to two survivors -- namely, Mike Love, the group's cocky lead singer, and Brian Wilson, the group's musical architect and resident genius -- and their often distorted memories.

Brian Wilson, as you're apt to have read somewhere by now, has been on a solo tour for the past year, which has taken him through the U.S., as well as in front of hysterical, ecstatic Japanese fans, and to a showstopping performance at Neil Young's annual Bridge Concert in San Francisco late last year. On Friday and Saturday nights of this week, he'll be recording a live album at the Roxy, which will be released via his Web site (BrianWilson.com) later this year.

"I'm thoroughly convinced that nothing in the world makes him happier than being around a group of people performing vocal harmonies," says Darian Sahanaja, co-leader, singer, and keyboardist of the Wondermints, who make up the core of Wilson's backing band. "I think it's a very spiritual thing. It's his very favorite thing -- that and food!" He laughs.

"Going into this, we already knew Brian Wilson is not Bruce Springsteen," Sahanaja continues. "He's never been a performer, so it's never really been about that. It's always been about his vision, creativity, his songs, his arrangements, and his sensibility. So the shows have basically been to showcase the legacy of the music with the man himself -- the actual composer -- present."

"I'm a pretty happy guy," Wilson says during a brief interview between rehearsals for the shows. "In fact, I'm as happy as hell!"

Nevertheless, even current information continues to get distorted in this musical saga, sometimes coming from the main surviving source himself. It's little wonder, then, that historical facts get blurred. For instance, Brian claims: "I haven't been able to write anything new in over a year, but I have been playing a lot of piano. I've been at the piano every day, two or three times a day -- trying to keep alive, keep my voice alive. But I haven't been able to get any new melodies going. I've had writer's block, I guess." Yet, Sahanaja reveals that in addition to a new version of Wilson's gorgeous "Till I Die," the Roxy shows will be augmented by two brand-new Wilson originals, including a tune titled "This Isn't Love."

Of course, this type of distortion is basically minute detail, based on Wilson's whim of the moment, and ultimately harmless. When it comes to Beach Boy Mike Love's selective memories, however, things get a little more complicated and a lot more damaging. In fact, perversion may be a preferable word to distortion when it comes to Love's version of the truth.

During the last several months, there have been several television specials examining the Beach Boys phenomenon. In the last three weeks alone, Court TV ran a special documenting the various Beach Boys lawsuits involving Brian (and usually his cousin Mike Love) over the last decade, while American Movie Classics just hosted a Saturday night Beach Boys marathon, The Beach Boys: Then & Now, which included a rebroadcast of Endless Harmony, a documentary originally made for VH1 and recently released commercially on VHS and DVD by Capitol Records. Not coincidentally, when Mike Love offers a sound bite in the documentary, presenting himself as the "bright, positive" counterpart to Brian's "dark" side, history has a way of suddenly being rewritten. For instance, in a new scene added to the DVD version, Love suddenly takes credit for suggesting that Paul McCartney write a Beach Boys-like song about Ukraine girls, which, of course, became "Back in the USSR" -- and which is news to any rock historian who's followed the story throughout the years.

The worst example of Love's revisionism, however, was the ABC-TV miniseries, The Beach Boys: An American Family, which ran two nights in late February as part of sweeps month. Produced by actor John Stamos (who frequently drummed for the Love-fronted nostalgia unit calling itself the Beach Boys in the years following Dennis Wilson's death), the film could have listed a credit for Minister of Propaganda to Love. As an angry review on a Beach Boys-related Web site explained: "[The film was] a monstrously vile, twisted perversion of the truth...It's Mike's version of what happened, told with a huge smirk at all the so-called 'Brian freaks' he so deeply disdains."

The ironic thing is that when Wouldn't It Be Nice, the Brian Wilson autobiography written with Todd Gold (and, many argue, Dr. Eugene Landy, Wilson's controversial psychotherapist), was published in the mid-'90s, the ever-litigious Love was part of a libel suit against Wilson, Gold, and the publishers over objectionable material in that book. Shortly after that suit (and after Landy was out of the picture), Love was awarded $5 million from Wilson following a suit he filed over cosongwriting credits he claimed he never received; Love is currently suing former Beach Boy Al Jardine over the name "The Beach Boys' Family & Friends," which Jardine has been using to bill his current touring group, which includes Brian's daughters, Carnie and Wendy. It's almost as though Love has tried to claim his legacy via the American judicial system. And when that wasn't enough, he created a miniseries to claim his glory, presenting himself as the true vision behind the  Beach Boys. The sad fact, though, is that the TV movie now exists forever as a strong public record -- in other words, to be believed as history by those who don't know any better.

"I didn't like the second part," Brian hesitantly says of the miniseries. "It wasn't really true to the way things were. I'd like to see another movie if it was done right. But I just sort of turned my back to this one, or my other cheek, or whatever you wanna call it. It was best just to ignore it because it really wasn't true to life."

Sahanaja remembers a rehearsal last summer when Wilson's wife and comanager, Melinda, was on the phone with a copy of the script in front of her, yelling at one of Love's representatives over certain questionable content. Brian was so upset that he asked for the keys to the car and sat in the parking lot until the incident was over. "It was so sad," says Sahanaja, "because Brian's happier now, trying to move on -- and yet this stuff from the past keeps popping up to haunt him. My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."


In fact, the miniseries begins by portraying Dennis (who reportedly despised Love; legend has it that   the two were once involved in a fistfight onstage at the Greek Theatre in the '70s) and Love surfing together as best friends -- the two studs on the beach -- even though every Beach Boys history to date claims Dennis was the band's only surfer. The film then depicts it being Love's idea to form the band, and as the miniseries progresses, Mike comes up with nearly every brilliant idea -- from creating the titles Pet Sounds and Endless Summer to "jamming with John and Paul" in India -- as Brian rapidly becomes a slobbering, drug-crazed idiot. It's almost comical. Accordingly, a German-based Web site devoted to the work of Wilson collaborator Van Dyke Parks (www.vandykeparks.com) is currently hosting a "Best Mike Love Joke" contest. One of the funniest is a short story in which Love takes credit for writing songs with Bruce Springsteen, creating Live Aid, reuniting the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac, directing Schindler's List, and creating Windows 95 ("Bill Gates didn't give me credit!"), among other things.

"There are two sides to every story," concludes Sahanaja, "and I'm sure some of what Mike claims is legit. But I'm also a believer in it's all about how you present yourself. I think he could get his due, but I don't think people are willing to give it to him just because of the way Mike is."

It's perhaps fitting that the Love joke page should be found on a Van Dyke Parks Web site, since -- next to the three Wilson brothers themselves -- Parks was the historical figure most maligned by the ABC miniseries. Parks, Brian Wilson's musical collaborator on the ill-fated and ultimately aborted Smile LP (the planned follow-up to Pet Sounds),  was depicted as a drug-addled hippie, only several steps removed from Charles Manson, and a key figure in Brian's eventual breakdown and decline.

Of course, the movie makes no mention of Parks' subsequent substantial career -- he's worked with everyone from the Byrds, Paul Revere & the Raiders, and his friend Harry Nilsson to, more recently, Fiona Apple, U2, Sam Phillips, and Rufus Wainwright, the latter whose debut LP he coproduced. The telepic also makes no note of his movie or TV soundtracks, nor seems to consider his collaboration with Brian Wilson several years ago on the wonderful Orange Crate Art album. But in a gallant move that totally counterbalances Parks' portrayal in Love's film, Brian and Melinda recently asked Parks to do the orchestration for a proposed tour this summer that will have him and the Wondermints performing Pet Sounds in its entirety, with symphonies, throughout the country. (The show is scheduled to play the Hollywood Bowl on September 24th.)

"As I understand it, Pet Sounds wasn't done with an orchestra for the record," says a concerned Parks. "So the point here wouldn't be to get a whole bunch of people together to play Brian's music simply for the bravado of it. It's not about what can be added to the music, but what can be done to confirm what's already on the record. I wouldn't want to intrude too much, but I would work very hard to layer [the orchestration] correctly. So I'm hoping that I can do it. But the fact that I'm being considered to work on Brian's summer tour is a positive confirmation of the real value he places on me and the value I place on him."

Nevertheless, Parks -- ever the Southern gentleman -- remains flabbergasted by his portrayal in the movie, as he sits in the quiet Hancock Park home he shares with his wife, Sally. The composer claims that he's asked the ABC legal department to delete the eight mentions of his name before they "exploit" the film again, although "the jury's still out and the damage has already been done."

He also claims that it was his phone call to old friend Lucy Fisher, cochairperson of Sony Entertainment, that got the network to run a disclaimer about the show often being "a work of fiction with much dramatic license." Parks claims the Sony executive called him seven minutes before the telecast to let him know what she'd been able to do. "She's a very decent person," says Parks. "I'd phoned her to express the Wilsons' dismay at the tenor of the show, and when she called me back she said it was the least she could do for all the pleasure she'd received over the years from Brian Wilson's music. She didn't say the Beach Boys. She may have meant the Beach Boys, but she said Brian Wilson."

He reflects a moment. "What's amazing to me -- and in a way, it's a compliment -- is that Mike Love has borne -- and I'm sure it cost him some great effort -- such an animosity toward me for so many years."

It's especially ironic in light of the fact that Wilson's other lyrical collaborators -- Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Gary Usher -- were never even mentioned in the film. After all these years, Parks -- and his "acid alliteration," as Love once termed it -- obviously still pose some sort of threat to Love. "It astonished me," says Parks. "Likewise, seven of Mike Love's wives were not named in his autobiographical television project. I thought that was a big slight. I was actually embarrassed by the time Mike Love devoted on his anger toward me.

"I finally needed to investigate, in my own mind, the basis of Mike Love's adolescent animosity because, quite simply, I was blindsided by it. What exactly did I do? Well, many years ago, I suggested to Brian Wilson that he put a cello on 'Good Vibrations.' He did, and it became a signature sound of that song. I also suggested the triplet fundamentals in the music. I did that. And I admit that Brian then offered me the lyrics to that song because he was embarrassed with the 'excitation' part Mike Love had insisted on adding. But I told Brian that I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole and that nobody'd be listening to the lyrics anyway once they heard that music. Besides, why should I make an enemy of Mike Love?

"So I turned down Brian's kind offer to cowrite 'Good Vibrations.' I was more interested in a long-term relationship with Brian. And it was one of the few times I've actually been smart in my career because it ensured I'd work with Brian again in other ways. And when I later found out that the lyrics that I was writing for Brian Wilson were a matter of great concern amongst the other Beach Boys, particularly Mike, I walked away from the opportunity. And I did so because I thought it might ease Brian's anxieties. I hoped it might make his life better.

"That wasn't depicted in the film. Nor was the question: 'Who was Van Dyke Parks to the Beach Boys?' Well, for one thing, I co-wrote the song that brought Brian to Carnegie Hall when Leonard  Bernstein called 'Surf's Up' one of the great songs of the 20th century. I did that by relieving Brian of the lyrical juvenilia of fast cars and faster women. That image was very much perplexing Brian at that time. He wanted a more poetic vision in his music. Now, it wasn't necessary, but it was his individual right. So I helped him explore that. And happily so! And then I left that world for a career as an executive at Warner Bros. Records.

"The Beach Boys were at a very low point in their career. They'd left Capitol Records, but they ended up at Warner Bros. because I personally begged [then Warner chief] Mo Ostin to sign them. And they were considered a problem at that time. They were an industry albatross, simply because there were so many egos involved. Everyone at the label just wanted Brian Wilson to come over and write some songs. Well, the Beach Boys were in Holland and had recorded what the label called 'an unreleasable album.' I still had a demo tape of 'Sail On, Sailor.' I came up with that lyric when I was working with Brian, as well as the [musical] pitches those words reside on. I did nothing with that tape until I saw the Beach Boys crisis at the company where I was working, earning $350 a week.

"Well, they recorded the song, and it was a hit. And I'm glad that everyone then came out of their little rooms to claim cowriting credit on that song. But I never questioned it, just as I never questioned the various claims on the residuals. You could say I did the Beach Boys a nice turn there. It was just a nice thing to do.

"Many years later, when [producer] Terry Melcher wanted to take the song 'Kokomo' to the tropical islands, he called me and wanted to use my Rolodex, so to speak. So, I brought some great   musician friends -- people who'd played with Sinatra, Fitzgerald, Cecil Taylor -- to play with me on that session. I was paid well for my work, although it was a nonunion session -- no hospitalization, no dental, nothing extra if it went   commercial. The Beach Boys, after all, were Republicans -- unions weren't something to mention to them. We weren't dealing with Studs Terkel. We were dealing with Bruce Johnston and Mike Love, who'd become the entity known as the Beach Boys. Of course, the song went to number one, and Mike Love always made a very big deal out of the fact that it was made without Brian Wilson. And that was always very alarming to me because beyond the Beach Boys' beautiful music, my allegiance has always been to Brian Wilson, who hired me years ago and told me he'd give me 50 percent of anything we wrote together. He said that speaking from his throne at a time when I was nobody. Isn't that the sign of a marvelous person?"

Parks recalls he saw Love one final time when Melcher called him to Monterey to play synthesizer on the Beach Boys' final album, recorded without Brian, 1992's dreadful Summer in Paradise. A neighbor offered to fly the musician to Monterey in his one-engine plane if Parks agreed to cover gas and other expenses. When he got there, Love was meditating in Melcher's living room. "For the first time in 30 years, he was able to ask me directly, once again, 'What do those lyrics -- Over and over the crow flies, uncover the cornfield -- mean?'" Parks said about that meeting in '95. "And I was  able to tell him, once again, 'I don't know.' I have no idea what those words mean. I was perhaps thinking of Van Gogh's wheat field or an idealized agrarian environment. Maybe I meant nothing, but I was trying to follow Brian Wilson's vision at that time." Parks says Love asked if he could fly back to L.A. in the plane with him. "We had a nice chat and he insisted that he wanted to split the cost of the flight with me, so he gave me a card with his number on it. The next morning, I called to discover it was a disconnected number. And that was the last time I saw Mike Love."

As for the druggy way Parks was portrayed in the film, "I'd already told my young children years before that unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale. Unlike Mike Love, I did inhale. But unlike George W. Bush, I also grew up in the '60s, which were a time for renewal and revelation. It's not theoretical. The night I was out in Hollywood with Phil Ochs and we got beat up by policeman because we were part of a group pressuring Lyndon Johnson not to run again, well, that was the night Johnson decided not to run. So the '60s were not theoretical. I associated with people who had courage back then and people who were beautiful. I saw the beautiful people -- and, believe me, Brian was one of them. I'm very sorry about the way that show portrayed him and -- let me be very emphatic here -- that was not the Brian Wilson I knew.

"I never took a joint to Brian's house, just as I'd never offer drugs to any employer. It's just not prudent! One thing that was true was I never went into [Brian's living room] sandbox, but that's only because there was dog sh*t in it. It wasn't because I was too good or arrogant to do it. But I never went into that [marijuana] tepee, because I didn't want to be smoking a joint when Mike Love walked into the room. I was working for the most powerful man in the American music business at the time. I was very aware of that fact and had no desire to spoil it.

"The lyrics ultimately just got out of my hands. I was not a Dadaist. I didn't sit in on the [Smile] 'Fire' sessions [the night Brian reportedly went insane]. By then, he was surrounded by so many people that I knew my opportunity to do this little American quilt work with him called Smile was over and done with.Mike ultimately put a stop to it. And yet the movie brought into question a certain amount of work I did for Brian many years ago, most of which was never commercially released, due in large part to Mike Love's objections. I'm very proud of the music I made with Brian Wilson. But I'm also proud that I walked away from a great opportunity at the time to maintain peace."

Parks wasn't pleased how the other Wilson brothers were portrayed in the film, either. Carl Wilson -- often credited with keeping the band together after Brian's breakdown -- hardly existed in the flick. "I thought a great deal of Carl Wilson," says Parks. "He was a really nice guy. I didn't do a lot with him, but he was always very nice to me and extended himself to me in very subtle ways. He was a very gifted man. The last time I saw Carl, I played 'Ave Maria' at his mother's funeral, and he embraced me afterwards. To be with him and Brian at Audrey's funeral was a very big deal to me, personally."

As for Dennis, Parks offers one telling anecdote. "That movie showed Dennis Wilson cowering in front of Charles Manson!" says Parks. "Well, I'll tell you what really happened. One day, Charles Manson brought a bullet out and showed it to Dennis, who asked, 'What's this?' And Manson replied, 'It's a bullet. Every time you look at it, I want you to think how nice it is your kids are still safe.' Well, Dennis grabbed Manson by the head and threw him to the ground and began pummeling him until Charlie said, 'Ouch!' He beat the living sh*t out of him. 'How dare you!' was Dennis' reaction. Charlie Manson was weeping openly in front of a lot of hip people. I heard about it, but I wasn't there. The point is, though, Dennis Wilson wasn't afraid of anybody! Dennis was a total alpha male -- something Mike Love wants to be but isn't ."

Parks understands that An American Family will stand as a legacy for Beach Boys fans who don't know the history, but he's hoping that the music will ultimately stand as the stronger legacy. "What I saw on that show about Brian Wilson was false, and   that's all I really need to say," he concludes. "I guarantee you it was a pack of lies. And I'll tell you something -- I'll give you one final clean piece of evidence. The audience was led to believe by that movie that John Lennon wanted to jam with Mike Love. Well, I was with John Lennon one time, and he told me that he and Paul thought that Mike Love was -- and these are the words John Lennon used -- 'a jerk.' The Beatles thought Mike Love was a jerk. So there are obviously two different impressions of that meeting. Mike Love has one and John Lennon had another. So, I'm submitting John Lennon's recollection to you since he's no longer here to do it himself."

It's nice to know that history can sometimes be redeemed by the survivors on the sidelines.

Brian Wilson and the Wondermints play the Roxy, 9009 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, on Friday and Saturday, April 7 and 8. Both shows are sold out.

Over the last couple of years it has been shown on the AXS network.
Yes, the early parts are okay. It really starts going off the rails when Brian goes into a room and meets the VDP character for the first time. I can’t stomach it after that scene.

I haven't seen the film in ages, so I don't recall this scene.

But a high-quality screenshot needs to be taken of this; this could be meme gold.

My recollection is that it's a scene from circa 1967 or so where Mike is talking to his wife in a door way and the mustache and/or beard starts peeling off. If I'm recalling correctly, the actor can tell it's happening and tries to nonchalantly push it back on during the course of the conversation.

But, for all the talk back at the time of the "high budget and production values", the fact that they *didn't* reshoot this scene tells me they were running a lean, quick operation. It surely had a higher budget than the 1990 "Summer Dreams" movie, but they couldn't waste a little more celluloid redoing that one scene apparently.

Video or screencaps of the movie are somewhat hard to come by. There are some, but that Mike scene is not exactly one of the scintillating moments of the movie, so it doesn't make the "highlights" compilations on YouTube.

Somebody posted a pic years and years ago if I recall correctly, on one of the boards.

Something to consider here that everyone seems to be missing.  It could very well be that this scene is the most accurate in the entire 2 part trip to 'la toilette'...aka the 'movie'.  This was a recreation of the time when Mike's beard and moustache rejected him.  Similar thing happened to 'Tricky Dicky' only a few years later when he went in for an asshole transplant and the asshole quickly rejected him.  sh*t happens. ;)

Thx, Lee. "Sh*t happens" as you said. Is anything else needed to be known about this cornucopia of crap?  I remember people hiding it from Brian (protecting him) thru part of the series. When he actually saw it, he had a "so what" attitude because it was such ridiculous tripe. But in protecting his own interests, he did note what a load of manure it was.

I wrote a long response to this yesterday and I guess I'm not too swift at posting stuff. It never showed up so I'm gonna give it another try and see if it shows up this time.
Maybe someone didn't like it and simply removed it? Is that possible? I could have sworn that I hit both "post" and "save" as I fashioned a response. (sigh)
BTW, thank you everyone for all the responses and info on "The Beach Boys, An American Family."
Here' my response to the above quote:

I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that this story is about the Wilson family and am surprised that it is characterized that way.
Much of the book's  focus is, in fact, on the Love brothers, Mike, Stan and Steve. The relationship of the Love brothers is often overlooked in the Beach Boys "oeuvre" and it is a fascinating recounting that we accomplish in this book. Over time, Mike helped established Steve as the manager, and it was Steve along with Marylin and Mike who hired Stan to help out with Brian who was slipping into a disastrous condition. Stan then brought Rocky, his college roommate and friend, aboard to join the "save Brian" team. This set the sage for a lot. All four of these guys, Mike, Steve, Stan and Rocky were each "bigger than life" in their own ways. Mike was Mike, superstar since forever, Steve was an accomplished scholar, (magna at USC)  and manager of one of the biggest bands in the world for nearly a decade with great success all around. Stan was a professional basketball player and Rocky was drafted by the NFL and became an international model (Playgirl centerfold and Camel Man). No lightweights in that bunch. Add sibling rivalry, band loyalty and the age old rift between management and talent, then sprinkle Carl and Dennis Wilson on the whole concoction, and "look out Cleveland," stuff was bound to happen and it did! To me, it is this explored interaction that makes the read so interesting and previously, in many ways, untold.
The technical part we left out was where Steve was fired, and even charged with felony embezzlement. Steve was later completely exonerated legally (I've seen the court docs) and additionally,  "forgiven" by everyone, as I understand it. It was a a dark alleyway we chose not to go down. I'm guessing here, but I bet there were huge regrets on all sides for the whole incident. Tough stuff.
 

Oh, how I wish Doe were here for this.  >:D

It would be entertaining. Is he around somewhere, BTW? Haven't seen or heard from him for awhile.

Hmm, why do I get the idea that I'm perhaps being served up for lunch to someone named Doe. Hello Doe. Me, friend. You?

Yes, he’s big on the Pet Sounds Forum.

What I said above was not communicated with clarity - "Wilson family", in this context, was meant to include the Brothers Love.  I'm not an expert in genealogy, but I do believe that the Love bros. and the Wilson bros. all carry the same proportion of the controversial "Wilson blood."  The book was about 6 cousins - two sets of three brothers.  The core cousins who figure in the book are Brian, Dennis, Stan and Steve. Mike barely figures into it and Carl pops up to get cold-cocked, but otherwise doesn't play into it.  Rocky himself is (almost literally) the wild card and or joker in the deck.  The book was about family - however that's defined - more than it is about a rock 'n' roll band.  If the band is a family, and the family is a band, then it may that - at least in some isolated instances - Steve Love and Stan Love are "Beach Boys" just as much as, say, Bruce J. and Al J.  Just throwing that out there, not sure I agree with it.  

I don't think this forum is the right place to get into the ins-and-outs of the complicated issues that are (inadvertently?) raised in this book.  While I continue to believe that "nobody comes off well," I could have been nicer and clarified that (a) that's the nature of life and people are people, we're all human, etc. (b) The book is wrong in its value judgments and, like so much other Beach Boys commentary, operates on the basis of shaky core assumptions that should be questioned (c) the book is still good, in that it succeeds in what it seems to want to do and want to say.  That is, a book like this can be both honest, and wrong.  That is, heavily biased, but honest and transparent in its biases and subjective outlook.

Ron did a good job translating from the original RockRush into English.  

"Mike was Mike superstar since forever"????? Huh?? ??? ??? ??? What the hey you talkin' 'bout, boy?? More like embarrassing clown forever. :p

Have to agree with OSD.  Leave that Kool-Aid alone boy.  You've been badly [and easily ... apparently] conned.

Big??, Oh, you would be referring to the Doester's girth predicament.  :lol :lol

Thinking of that awful movie I always remember the Good Vibrations session scene where Brian is sitting at the piano in a daze before Mike arrives just in the nick of time, says "Here's the hook" and sings the I'm pickin' up Good Vibrations line. Like magic the entire work springs out of that moment, and we think gosh what would Brian have ever done without Mike.

Speaking only as a 60's Beach Boys fan who rediscovered them in the 70's at those incredible concerts, one of the great things about the band in 1972 was that there was no front man. Knowing little to nothing about Mike, me and my friends thought it was cool the way he stayed out of the way during some of the songs, even sitting down on the side of the stage at times. We thought he was some kind of stoned California hippie who maybe lived in a hut on the beach and taught meditation classes, but when the band finally broke into Surfin' USA and that unmistakable voice came through we were like "Oh God he's that guy from the 60's records!"

Just a young (at the time) fan's perspective from the audience. Mike's thing back then was just one more layer of magic from this mind-blowing band on top of all the amazing songs and performances from everybody else onstage. The music was progressive and the surf and car hits at the end were just a "Oh hey, we can still do these too." When I listen to the music from those Jack Rieley years I still like to think of the band in that way, a Grateful Dead kind of musical democracy that happened to have a string of hits in the 60's but grew up to become cool California hippies. And although I love Brian's comeback and the Love You album, I wish that vision was closer to the truth and that they had continued developing the kind of music on Holland. By the time of the '76 "It's OK" TV special that magic was long gone.

Oh God no.

About 8 mins into part two, Mike kisses his wife - and off it comes.

Oh Brother, there's one born every moment. I just ordered for the 2ed time a copy of the 2 part movie. The first version I had was so grainy and badly copied, I could barely watch it.
After hearing all of Smile site's educated comments, it sounds like a clean copy will be just as useless.
I was seduced by the clips on YouTube and wanted to be familiar with all the dramatic versions of the band history. I thought the actors were actually pretty good when I saw those clips.
I had occasion to talk to Marilyn to whom we had sent a copy of the book and when I asked her if she had a copy of the 2 parter she just laughed and said it was just "made up."

She had not finished the book yet but was reading it and we agreed to talk again.

Stan Love, who for reasons still murky to me does not communicate with Rocky, really liked the book and asked for more copies to help promote it and gave us his Mike's address to get a copy to him. Wow. I was very pleased about that.

Wait a minute. "Embarrassing clown forever." Was it you singing harmony and keeping it together day after day, night after night, massive crowd after massive crowd, show after show?
I'm always a little amused when people bash Mike Love. Here's why;

Imagine you are Mike Love, backstage wherever, a huge crowd is waiting to be entertained. NOW I'M MAKING THIS UP, mind you, flight of fancy, if you will, but just stay with me for a moment.
You check out the guys you're about to walk out there with:

Brian : Not "what city are we in?" like Dennis or Carl who were often barley sober enough to stand up, but "what planet are we on?"
Carl and Dennis, "whoopee, can I get a drink on stage with me?" Carl actually fell into the drum set on one occasion and a stand by drummer was continually on the road with them because Dennis was often incapable of "going on with the show" at all. Mike Kowalski had to slip on stage to play drums. Now, there's no doubt that Carl and Dennis were talented and both superior musicians, but they were not consummate professional entertainers consistently. Say what you will. MIKE LOVE WAS.
Al Jardine : "Whew, someone I can count on. THANK GOD."

The "crazies" outnumbered the sobers by at least three to two. That can't have been easy.

I think we can all thankful and certainly all the myriad fans can be thankful that Mike Love, meditator, sober, present and capable was there day in and day out.

Youse pays for a ticket, youse wants to see a show. Mike delivered, always! So says his brother Steve Love to this day, and, sadly, there has been no love lost there for quite some time.

Jus sayin.

Ron, you've obviously been drinking Rocky's Kool-Aid.  You are obviously only seeing things through the "Rocky and the Love's" lens.  Carl, not Mike, was the driving force on the road, he held the band together and made them put on a professional show, save for a few exceptions (like Perth). Brian, Dennis and Carl were the driving force in the studio.  Mike's contributions were to front the band on stage (though Carl also filled that role to a large degree in the '70's and into the '80's) and try to self-promote in any way imaginable.  Mike is a rooster without a henhouse.

.

Ron, I think you will find that there are a lot of people on here (including myself) who will freely acknowledge that Mike made a very important contribution to the band.  First, his vocals are an essential part of the blend.  He wrote the lyrics to some of their greatest hits.  And yes, he was a consistent performer.  However, there is a quote in the article that HeyJude posted whereby Darian Sahanaja says that he thinks Mike could get his due, but that people aren't willing to give it to him just because of the way Mike is.  I think that's a pretty accurate and fair statement.  Mike has done a LOT of things that make it very easy to dislike him. And I think calling Mike Love a "mediator" is like calling Santa Claus skinny.  Um, NO.  He may have been present and sober, but he was not a mediator.  I find it laughable to describe someone who's famous for his lawsuits against family and bandmates a mediator.   

Second, I don't think that painting a picture of Carl as perpetually drunk and falling into drum kits is fair, accurate, or respectful.  Everyone can acknowledge that Carl had a couple of bad years due to substance abuse, but we're talking what, three years out of a 30+ career?  I stand to be corrected, but the incidents on the Australia tour are not representative of Carl's overall role in the band.  He is unfailingly described as the bandleader, the peacemaker, the immensely talented producer, singer and musician.  He is also unfailingly described as a nice and respectful person.  The picture that you're painting here is really ugly. 

And finally, referring to the Wilsons as "the crazies" is pretty much going to ruin your credibility with serious BB fans.  Just saying. 

Ron, if anything watch that "American Family" film when it focuses in on the years 1966-67, specifically the creation of Pet Sounds-Good Vibrations-Smile-Smiley Smile, etc.

What you'll see is a nearly complete rewriting and whitewashing of history, to the point where real people's names had to be left out because the portrayal or suggestions of them in that film were basically defamation and/or slander. It's as frustrating for fans who have knowledge of what happened as well as fans of the music and the people being turned into cartoon-like bad guys or shown as idiots to watch that dreck play out.

And what's more frustrating is this was shown over 2 nights on ABC as something of an "authorized" bio of the band. I taped it both nights. The 66-67 part of it was awful enough to scupper the whole thing. And I'm not alone in that assertion.

Now factor this into it:

John Stamos was instrumental in bringing this film to the air on ABC, I believe he was the exec producer.

So one could rather easily draw a line between him and his friend Mike Love and suggest these scenes are Mike's version of the Beach Boys' history as shown through Mike's perspective. Then when you go further and read some of Mike's various legal filings, and his depiction of the years 1966-67 and Smile and beyond, they line up with the cartoonish portrayal as seen in this film. Druggies, interlopers, hangers-on, coattail riders, leeches...and a zonked out Brian Wilson with destructive collaborators and influences around him. Until, that is, Mike Love swoops in to save Brian and "write music with my cousin".

So for all the platitudes in the descriptions of the book and Mike's role and image thus far, consider this trainwreck of a historically inaccurate "authorized" TV movie  bio could very well be how Mike Love wanted to portray the band's history for millions of unknowing fans watching it.

Uh Ron, your credibility just tanked when you began comparing myKe luHv to Carl Wilson. You obviousley have absolutely no concept nor basic knowledge of the band's history with the exception of what has been spoon fed to you by those with a "luHv" infested agenda. I have not purchased a ticket, nor gone to see the fake myKe luHv version of the road band since Carl regrettably passed away and I never will because I can't stomach watching an ungrateful, litigious, egomaniac clown disgrace the Beach Boys name. This jerk is hell bent on rewriting history by trying to mislead the unknowing public into swallowing down that HE was the the driving force behind the band and that Brian couldn't produce without him. By the way, you mentioned that he was so very instrumental in keeping the show on the road and delivering a quality show. Ha! After Carl is gone, this turd goes and FIRES Al Jardine because he was DIFFICULT?? Well there goes the best voice in the band and is replaced with a couple of sidemen! Huh?  :o  ::) :o. Yeah, I'll go see the "Beach Boys" after mYke luHv is officially gone.  >:D

Reynaldo, did anyone tell you the part about how Carl Wilson cleaned up his act after he hit bottom in Australia?

Also, I fail to see any sort of moralizing regarding whether or not band members struggled with substances (or didn't) as being appropriate in any way when seemingly judging their character. It's what's inside that counts, and it just so happens that the particular members of this band who sadly struggled the most with substances just happened to have the biggest hearts and were the best people deep down where it counts. Being sober in and of itself does not necessarily by definition a good person make, and vice versa.

Equating Dennis's and Carl's drug/alcohol abuse in terms of how it impacted the band and band members would have to show a gross lack of understanding of the band's history.

Carl's off-the-rails issues lasted a pretty short amount of time, whereas Dennis had more serious problems, longer-lasting problems, and obviously Dennis's heart-breaking demise indicates how more more severe his problems were.

Sure, there have been subtle and not-so-subtle implications that Carl's drinking continued to be an issue for years after his 1976-1978-ish issues. But if that was the case, it was 100% behind the scenes and didn't impact anything to do with the band. Even Mike Love, who has not been shy about barfing out ample negative points pertaining to "the Wilsons'" use of drugs and alcohol, has never indicated Carl was an issue at all after 1978.

Check out any live performance from 1979 to the end in 1997. Not once have I ever seen or heard on stage (or in any other interview or studio recording, etc.) the overt on-stage inebriation Carl seemed to display on some extant 1977 and 1978 recordings.

Is there deep, dark, unknown things about all of these guys that we don't know? Surely, as with anyone. But I'm not sure why there is an overemphasis of the "crazy Wilsons" in that 1977-78 timeframe. Make not mistake, that era was a strained moment in the band's career that is absolutely important to document. They nearly did arguably reach the point of breaking up in September of 1977. Or as near as they ever came in the pre-1998 era. But that "free living vs. the TM'ers" thing (or whatever it was being called) was a pretty short blip in the history of the band.

Honing in predominantly on Carl's career during the short period of time he was doing drugs and getting punched out by Rocky would be like knowing nothing about Brian Wilson and then *only* reading the Usher diaries books. It would give insight into a small section of the story, but ignore the other 50+ years before and after.

If one were trying to convey the band's history (or, even if only focusing on a short era, also bring in some details about what happened in the years of aftermath), it would be key to point out how drastically the band politics changed in the 80s. By the 90s, it was Al Jardine on the outs and Brian largely out of the picture. Carl apparently was largely resigned to Mike running the band, it would appear.

Yeh let's not overstate Carl's minor problems during 1977-78. There are plenty of live shows out there from this period in which Carl perfoms well, even if he looked a bit out of it or whatever. Dennis was usually professional as well when present.

But these guys -- even in these states -- had passion and vibe that the others lacked. It was their edge. Really why do we care so much about putting on a professional show night after night etc???

I'm not down on Mike, he doesn't deserve half of the crap flung at him. After all, the man co-wrote most of the Wild Honey album. But let's not take Carl and Dennis down to bring Mike up.

Let's talk about another thing. I've told the story before -- I wrote all of The Beach Boys individual letters when I was 14 (in 1993) basically just telling them how much I loved their music. Carl was the only one to respond -- and he sent an autographed picture. That was not only the "professional" thing to do, but honestly just good hearted. I don't buy any book that trashes Carl, sorry. He is a hero.

Sometimes I get "schooled" and I think in many ways I just was. Painful but growth inspiring.
In my defense, I'm trying to point out that the stuff we didn't see, off stage, where Mike Love's steady hand was forceful is why I came off respecting him so highly - an unpopular point of view with many. Mike was also tough and controversial as well. Still, I stick to my guns, he was the glue that kept this show on the road and that ain't easy. On stage is one arena, off stage another. There's skill and genius in both areas. He straddled that divide masterfully.
Just a note, I described him as a "meditator" referring to him as a guy who chose a sober lifestyle centered around Transcendental Meditation, not a "mediator." He was not know for that. Tough, forceful, talented, feisty, but "mediator," not particularly.
As an aside I've been a Transcendental Meditator for decades, so I have that connection with Mike. I hope to be able to share that kind of space with him someday in person.

From your point of view, you may be right. Lot's of fans who still enjoy "The Beach Boy" to this day disagree. If we gave a jaundiced, disrespectful portrait of Carl, which I don't concede we did, certainly not intentionally, in any case, my apologies. We are lucky to have been able to enjoy Carl's talents as long as we did. Not long enough, certainly.

I agree. Both Carl and Dennis were bigger than life in the "heart" area. Substance abuse and the behavior it inspires has little to do with the person. In many ways when someone is "in his cups" on any given day, or even encompassed in the grips of the disease of addiction in a larger sense, we are involved with a disease and not the underlying character of the actual person. Still, like it or not, the actions have real effects on those in the "fallout" area. To see Dennis' enormous talent swallowed up by addiction was tragic. I would have liked to have him around an productive. "Pacific Ocean Blue" showed great promise. I would have like to have seen more.

I think you are ill advised if you think the book "trashes" Carl. It doesn't. Contempt prior to investigation is your loss. It's a pretty darn good book. BTW, that's a lovely story about Carl. I wish I would have heard it before. That's the exact kind of tale we would have gone out of our way to include.

By the way, I had never heard of the Smile site before I was lucky enough to get involved with this project. I was just a guy that loved the Beach Boys music, no matter where or how it evolved. It is part of my musical DNA. I'm touched by the members of this site, whether I agree or disagree with them.
My over riding response is "youse guys rock, good on ya."
That's sounds a bit sappy, so keep on swinging at me, I can take it.

Guy trashes the most loved and respected members of a group. Entire message board rallies against said trashed members of the group and puts the guy in his place. Guy comes back with his tail between his legs saying "Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. They really were great guys!!". This is a most entertaining thread.  ;D

Oh my goodness!  My mistake.  I definitely should have read more carefully before I went on about Mike not being a mediator.  Sorry.    

But ...said "guy" is stickin' to his story 'cause the 'con' job has not only been swallowed whole but it's been completely digested and then, as a result, subsequently crapped out and used to fertilize more of that same supposed 'shinola' which has been published and even called a "book"...by some.  That the so-called "book" is the equivalent of the exact same 2-part made for TV B.S.-'fest' referred to in this specific thread is not to be construed as a problem though as the individual in question here is willing to 'take' our fan-worthy abuse' in order to further sales.

Well good fuckin' luck with THAT!!!

Considering that the "Pamplin era" of the BBs coincides with the "Free living vs. TM'ers" era of the group, and that this divide within the band was a key political issue of that era, I'd say it's probably important to know that the co-author of the book is a long-time TM practitioner.

While that nor anything of that sort should preclude someone from writing a book on the subject, I think it's fair to wonder if a long-time TM practitioner, and one that apparently went into writing this book without a deep, hardcore understanding of the band's history, might be more sympathetic to Mike's "side" during that era (or any era for that matter).

I think one of the few times a journalist delved into the dichotomy of Mike espousing the calming virtues and benefits of TM versus his arguably litigious nature and seeming anger/bitterness, etc. was the 2016 Rolling Stone piece. Here's a bit from that one:

In 2005, Love sued Brian once again, this time for “shamelessly misappropriat[ing] Mike Love’s songs, likeness and the Beach Boys trademark” during the promotion of Brian’s belatedly released Smile album, mainly because a tiny picture of Love with the Beach Boys found its way onto a promotional CD given out in a British newspaper. A judge dismissed all of the claims and said the copyright aspect “bordered on frivolous.” But far from suing Brian at every opportunity, shouldn’t Love, with all his years of meditation, have been the one to step forward and try to make peace?

He blinks at the question, rolls his eyes and curls his lip.

“When somebody in your family suffers from a mental illness, sometimes it’s gone past the opportunity to have a normal relationship,” he says. “I mean, there may be a feeling that, ideally, you would like to see peace in the family. And I have nothing but sympathy for Brian. But when you say ‘peace,’ that would presuppose everything is peaceful. Well, when somebody has chosen a path or direction in life that has led to some pretty unhappy situations, everything isn’t all right.”

And he’s completely serious. It’s out of his hands. There’s nothing he can do. It’s enough to make you bang your head against the statue of Shiva, the Indian god of destruction, that stands in his house, or turn upside down the framed photograph of him, George Harrison, John Lennon, Donovan and others hanging out with the Maharishi back in the day. Then again, in 1968, Love said, “One of the greatest things [about Transcendental Meditation] that interested me was that [the Maharishi] said, ‘You don’t have to give up your Rolls-Royce and forsake all your pursuits of material pleasures to develop inner-spiritual qualities.’ That sounded real good to me.” And maybe all the lawsuits could be considered part of those pursuits, too, and thus fully justifiable, at least on an inner-spiritual level.

Again, not having read the book, but having read the original thread with Rocky, and new snippets/reviews of the book here, one could almost be led to believe that the book could have turned out in a way to favor the pro-Mike "side" of the story (compared to how Rocky seemingly originally was going to have the book go in a possibly different direction, from what I remember of Rocky's posts from awhile back, which admittedly I have not re-read)... and I do wonder if Mike's people found a way to get Mike's political clout to encourage/strongarm Rocky's book turn out in a way that favors what Mike would want it to say (and not say). Is it out of line to make that assumption? I also understand that a perfectly straight answer for this might not be in the cards either. I also don't imagine there'd be a single person who'd want to admit that.

And hey, I'd assume that many wealthy and powerful celebs might do the same, if an insider had stuff to potentially say in a book; I imagine there are ways to get a particular book watered down prior to release to benefit what they do/don't want public. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it's hard to assume that a bunch of complex politics are not at work with regards to any release involving this band we love. Just like I imagine there had to have been a bunch of behind-the-scenes discussions with Mike with regards to the 2000 TV movie turning out in a way that he wanted, being that his buddy was an executive producer.  Same goes for Love & Mercy, of course.

"If Mike wasn't such a wanker it would be immensely easier to overlook his lack of any real talent..."


If someone famous didn't actually say that, they should have!

This is not an accurate characterization of Carl Wilson. Yes, there were some on-stage issues for a short period of time, but 99.9% of the time he was a consummate professional on stage. As a long time fan (to put it mildly!) I saw Carl on stage with the band on numerous occasions, starting way back in 1966, and I never once saw him "barely sober enough to stand up" wondering "what planet are we on?"

I "investigated" by watching the train wreck of a thread featuring Rocky unfiltered. And I have no contempt for the man or his book, however I also have no interest in supporting such an endeavor.

Ha I appreciate your hustle, but my opinion is this would have been better presented as a total smear of the band, low brow, crazy Rocky tabloid stuff ... with the original WIPEOUT name -- might have been a best seller!

Was that me?

Ideally we could all get a good sampling of the book (the "Look Inside!" bits on Amazon don't really offer enough), and I don't think anybody who hasn't read the book is trying to give it a full review.

But when you say things like this in a previous post:

Now, there's no doubt that Carl and Dennis were talented and both superior musicians, but they were not consummate professional entertainers consistently. Say what you will. MIKE LOVE WAS.

People get understandably nervous or skeptical reading stuff like that, because it seems as though you're offering a sort of "big picture" assessment of them. And if that's the case, then the statement above is grossly and demonstrably false. Carl perhaps above all else was noted for his professionalism and consistency on stage. Indeed, a main criticism of Carl (and the other guys, including Mike) in the later era (e.g. 90s) was that, at worst, they were sometimes simply on "autopilot" doing shows. The setlist might be stale, the performances perhaps a bit rote. But what Carl never was outside of that *very brief* era in 1977-78 was unprofessional or inconsistent.

Are you familiar with the band's 1981 tour? Go watch a 1979 or 1980 show, and then check out a 1981 show after Carl left. The band almost literally fell apart musically. With Mike running full steam in 1981 without Carl, the band was the exact opposite of professional and consistent. It was trainwreck status.

If all of these characterizations of Carl *are* only in reference to 1977-78, then of course it's all being overblown and overstated and overemphasized.

Whether it's actually the case or not, this book is coming across as being written by someone who had little "hardcore/scholarly" knowledge of the band, then used Pamplin's small window of intimate familiarity with the band (not coincidentally including that same 1977-78 timeframe), and is using that small timeframe to make larger, more broad judgments and assessments of the band.

That all being said, even noted Beach Boys author Jon Stebbins pointed out in his Dennis Wilson biography that really the *only* person holding that 1978 Australian tour together was Al Jardine. Carl was out of commission, Brian was lost, Dennis was actually on extant footage/audio the most "together" of the three Wilsons, Mike's shtick was wearing thin (nobody was into hearing "Country Pie" a year after "Pacific Ocean Blue"), and it was Al Jardine by default holding the thing together with scotch tape and glue. The same thing was true in 1981.

If you are looking for nuance, you're not going to find it in Rocky Pamplin. The "Jockstrap Brigade" was appropriately part of the BB's "first as tragedy, then as farce" cartoon re-enactment of their previous fall from the heights. Instead of Lorren Daro and Terry Sachen as agents of discord in the DUMB ANGEL phase of SMiLE, you have dim-witted enforcers employed by one faction attempting to "manage" the preternaturally wily Brian via Keystone Kops-inspired thuggery, all while Carl had his own personal meltdown as the Love/TM faction made its move.

How could Carl NOT have finally had such an episode, given how hard he'd worked to lead the band through its wilderness, only to have that all get set aside in the double maelstrom of ENDLESS SUMMER and Landy I, two unstoppable forces that led to "Brian is Back" and a level of discord that arguably exceeded the conflagrations of the Rieley era? Even a nuanced observer might not have grasped all of this as it suddenly enveloped Carl, temporarily making him as vulnerable to the addictive tendencies in the Wilson clan, propensities already thoroughly explored by his brothers.

Rocky's only possible value would have been to bite the hand that fed him--the Love faction. Failing that, he's nothing but a footnote to a sad but farcical period in BBs history that saw Brian backslide, Dennis self-destruct, all while the group coasted, putting out a series of "meh" (at best) records (MIU, LA, KTSA) via an process of mediocre homogenization (first by the TM faction, followed by Bruce).

All of the above is way over Rocky's head, of course--and absent any way of synthesizing anything he saw, it's not surprising that his recollections--either as an abrasively entertaining troll here, or as "cleaned up" by a ghost-writer--are so spectacularly tone-deaf.

Time to move on, folks...

Is the clown beating covered in the book?

Haven't met Mike Love. I know talent, I know management and I know the record and film bizness. The insights Rocky's and my collaboration reveal in the book reflect that and they're damn good.
Rocky  was there. I listened to him for a year or so, hour after hour of information from "behind the veil" so to speak, behind the scenes. Rocky was not in a position to assess what he was telling me from my experienced point of view. Read the book. Buy one, pass it around. Accept our offer of a discount but don't bash it without reading it. Doesn't make sense.

Yes, that is in the book. Say what you will about my expertise. I was just a lover of the music when I got involved. What I brought to the table was my ability to assimilate the information Rocky gained first hand, by being there, and put it into a really interesting context. Rocky's and my collaboration produced something insightful that many will find interesting.
Am I as informed as many of the members of this site? No. But I have an experienced overview of show business that shed some light on things in a pretty darn interesting way.
I've been around a block or two and it shows.

Yeah, yeah. I'll keep saying it, "contempt prior to investigation" is a sad way to roll. How can you comment on a book you have not read?

I'm gonna talk to the publisher and see if I can post a chapter for Smile members perusal. I just spoke to the Publisher and he may well allow it.

While this is less about what's in the book than some of the characterizations you've made here, you do realize that Rocky Pamplin was only involved with the group for a short portion of their history, right? Sure, he stayed in varying degrees of contact with other people who had varying degrees of contact with the band.

But, I'm guessing, Rocky Pamplin has not first hand knowledge of what occured, say, in the 60s, or the mid-late 90s, or the 2012 reunion, etc.

Does the book portend a thorough history of the band's entire career? Or does it start and end mostly with Rocky's stint with the group, with then a few tangential items outside of those years? If it's the latter, then your book nor your words are really characterizing the band's "history", but rather one small portion of it.

Have you read McParland's "The Wilson Project" (preferably the updated 2013 edition), which focuses on Brian's circa 1986 work with Usher? That's a book that has a very detailed breakdown of one small section of Brian's life/career, but doesn't pretend to then deduce any grand final judgements on his life or career.

So, and again this pertains more to posts on this thread rather than specifically the book, if a book is co-written by someone whose stint with the group included Carl Wilson's short run of drug/alcohol difficulties, and who is arguably most famous in the BB sphere for punching out said member of the group while the member was intoxicated/high, then it becomes problematic that that one short section of Carl's life/career becomes the centerpiece of discussion.

It appears this leads to subsequent assessments of Carl's career posted here on this thread that paint him as unprofessional (while pointing to Mike Love as the consummate professional of the band), and such an assessment shows a *glaring* case of tunnel vision of focusing so much on a roughly two-year period where Carl had a rough time.

This isn't a case of BB fans being in denial. I would imagine Carl's story is more complex than any book has yet told. But we have *ample* evidence from Carl's roughly 36-year career in the music business. Whatever one wants to say about his career (and there are plenty of things to criticize; his solo albums aren't exactly A-list material), making a broad judgment of Carl as "unprofessional" and "inconsistent" is *not* something supported by that ample evidence.

Again, the co-author has been kind enough to speak to some of what he did or didn't know going into working with Pamplin on this book. Using Pamplin as a primary source to characterize the group's entire history is justifiably going to cause fans and scholars concerns. I'd say the same thing if McParland had used Usher to draw broad conclusions about the entire band. Same thing with any narrow-focus biography/autobiography related to the band.

Fair enough assessment and I don't pretend that the book is a history of the Beach Boys. But of all the other Beach Boys books, none of them started with someone who was there day in and day out, inside the story, behind the scenes, for any length of time. It's a pretty cool peek into somewhere no other book has gone.
A historian, I, and certainly Rocky, ain't.

I'm gonna get a chapter posted for Smile.

The aforementioned Gary Usher book covering the 1986-87 period is certainly a case of someone who was there day in, day out.

Beyond obviously the Brian and Mike autobiographies, there are other books that get in-depth interviews with people who were in the fold even longer than Rocky. For instance, Jon Stebbins's "The Real Beach Boy" talks to lifelong Dennis friends and associates.

And of course the Stebbins/David Marks book is from an insider point of view.

Jim Murphy's "Becoming the Beach Boys" is an unparalleled work on the band's early years; by going back and digging into some Mark Lewisohn-level primary research, I'd frankly trust that book *more* than the half-century-old recollections of some folks.

I'm not at all interested in turning away from the not-so-fun side of the BB story. Despite its shortcomings, the Steven Gaines "Heroes and Villains" book got a lot of the story out there that needed to be out there. But, while Gaines seemed to have a varying amount of interest among the different eras of the band, he tackled not one small era of the band, but the whole story (up to 1986 or whenever that book was published). The particular book was the first to dive into the whole Rocky Pamplin part of the story. I doubt many fans knew the name Pamplin before that book. So I'm not opposed to that part of the story being out there. But fans and scholars have to weigh the angle/credibility, etc. accordingly. Trust me, BB fans and scholars have waded into countless books, and the knowledgeable fans are pretty good at sniffing out what's great, what's okay, what's questionable but still contains some important info, and the rest. For instance, a year or two ago a Carl Wilson biography was published. It was well-intentioned; author seemed like a nice guy, but it just didn't have much new information and skipped over the last years/decade+ of Carl's life. Take something like Scott Wilson's "Son of a Beach Boy." That book definitely needed a good editor/co-author, but the content was too important to let any of that get in the way.

Let it also be known that I don't always agree with all fans on books. For instance, some don't rate Gaines's "Heroes and Villains" too highly. But to me, despite a myriad of shortcomings, it's an important work until someone else comes along and does a better job.

I may indeed read the book at some point, and this wasn't meant as bashing,  just my attempt to be realistic based on what glimpses I've had thus far. I'm still somewhat curious. Yet I can understand that powerful parties who potentially stand to gain or lose based on the book's content could yield their power (via methods that I have no insight on), much like I assume that the final cut of the film Love & Mercy (as well as it turned out IMHO) was almost certainly impacted politically in *some* fashion by not just what the filmmakers wanted to say, but what they could/couldn't say without problems arising.  If lines are crossed, I imagine the wrath of known litigious folk could be a result. While you personally haven't met Mike Love, that in and of itself doesn't tell me that my assumption above is by definition completely incorrect.  I frankly think it would be rare and gutsy/stupid for any book like this by any insider about a famous band to simply be released without certain considerations being made. 

Good news I think. Rocky and I have permission to post one full chapter of the book for Smile perusal. As I mentioned this site was very influential in getting me involved and I'm indeed thankful.
It's the 2ed chapter titled "Last Ditch Effort" and we hope you'll like it. It will be along probably within a day. A few logistics are left to be worked out.
You are astute in your observations about having to be careful about a book including rich, influential people.
As one of my attorney friends reminded me when I realized that my name would actually go on the book, and I'll quote him here because it is an amusing and brilliant and frightening quip, all at the same time, "A rich, vexatious litigant can always cause trouble." Ha.
Believe me, that was on our minds. More to come.

The book is getting a review in the British Magazine "Record Collector" sometime in the near future and I will, in a shameless act of self promotion, post it here when it comes out.

The Chapter 2 is coming as promised along with what we call the before and after Pics of Brian when he went from 300+ pounds down to his "fighting" weight of 195.
That physical transformation with regard to the old adage "a pic is worth a thousand words" is quite remarkable, and for any of you doubters as to the efficacy of the Stan Love/Rocky Pamplin effect, this will be undeniable proof. I think you'll like it. Fun stuff.

As promised, here's the 2ed Chapter. I'm going to try and figure out how to get the "before" and "after" pics of Brian that were taken by Stan Love posted as well but they did not seem to print out when I transferred the chapter. Not sure why.

The Beach Boys' Endless Wave - Chapter two

Last Ditch Effort

Let’s back up a bit. This is a good time to explain some of the entangled Wilson and Love family history, introduce you to other assorted brothers and cousins, and give you some perspective as to why my best friend Stan and I entered the Beach Boys’ orbit.

Stan had five family ties to the Beach Boys. Four were in the band: Stan’s oldest brother, Mike Love, who has always been front man and lead singer, and his first cousins, Brian, Dennis, and Carl Wilson. Stan’s middle brother, Stephen Love, was the Beach Boys’ business manager.

The oldest Wilson brother, Brian, is the gentle genius who co-founded what’s often called "America’s Band" in 1962. Enough about him for now; I’ll fill you in on his challenges and accomplishments throughout Beach Boys’ Endless Wave.

Brian’s younger brothers, Dennis and Carl, are dead now. When they joined the Beach Boys in their middle teens, both boys had sweet voices and attitudes and did whatever their big brother and cousin asked of them. Dynamics sure changed as they grew up.

Mike Love, the oldest Beach Boy, has a long and involved relationship with his younger cousin, Brian. They co-founded the Beach Boys, and for years cooperated on songwriting. Mike has his own variety of hardworking genius; he’s the invaluable mixture of glue and sweat that held the band together for decades.

Mike has always been the dependable Beach Boy, sober and present through thick and thin and thousands of gigs. As the frontman and lead singer, he embodied the Beach Boys image with his voice and mesmerizing stage presence. The Beach Boys would have folded in 1964 without him, and he’s kept the band on the road for well over 50 years.

Even though he was not a family member, rhythm guitarist and vocalist Al Jardine was an important influence on the emergence of the band.

He was there when the group was still in high school, left for a while on the suggestion of his father to attend dental school, but luckily returned and stayed. Al sang the lead on the band’s first number one hit song, “Help Me Rhonda.”

His interest in folk music inspired Brian to arrange “Sloop John B” for the band to cover and Al later composed an unfinished original about his wife entitled, “Lady Lynda,” which Brian helped him finish and the band recorded. It has been on their live stage play list ever since.

Stephen didn’t aspire to be one of the Beach Boys; instead, he focused on academics and athletics. He was student body president of Morningside High School, class of 1965, and graduated seventh in his class of 535 students. Stephen was a star player on the Monarchs’ football team and earned first team all-league honors as a wide receiver on offense and as a safety on defense. Playing both offense and defense is rare enough; winning first team honors for playing both sides is almost unheard of.

Stephen was offered several football scholarships, including one to the University of Southern California, but he’d just had his heart broken by his high school sweetheart and he couldn’t muster the requisite enthusiasm to play football at the college level. Instead, he decided to accept an academic scholarship at USC, thinking he should buckle down and learn something useful that would prepare him for a career.

Stephen excelled academically at USC, graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish in 1969. His grades were so good that he applied for and received a full-ride fellowship to USC’s prestigious Graduate School of Business Administration.

The summer he graduated from college and before he started his two-year MBA program, Stephen visited his younger brother, Stan, in Eugene, Oregon. Stan played center on the University of Oregon basketball team, and he was fast becoming one of the top college players in the country.

As Stan’s roommate and close friend, I met Stephen during his visit. Since I was a running back for the Fighting Ducks of the University of Oregon, our shared football background helped us become good friends. We just clicked. It takes courage, athleticism and intestinal fortitude to play the game of football, and we recognized and respected these qualities in each other. You could say we were cut from the same cloth.

Stephen began working for the Beach Boys full-time that summer, and he worked part-time in the group’s offce during the school year until he earned his MBA. He assisted the band’s business manager, Nick Grillo, a man who was under a lot of pressure because the group was in decline, revenues were down, and the bills were piling up.

The band was not as popular as it had been before the British Invasion. The music scene changed dramatically with the likes of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Cream, and The Who. Jimi Hendrix had the bad taste to announce, “Well, we’ll never have to listen to that lame surf music again,” at the Monterey Pop festival in 1967.

That was, at best, mean-spirited crap in my opinion.

Since Brian had written most of the songs either alone or with Mike, he still received a good income from royalties, but the other Beach Boys’ income mainly depended upon touring. They never managed to tone down their lavish lifestyles, and they were in dire need of cash. Brian and his wife Marilyn took it upon themselves to keep the group afloat during the band’s lean days in the late Sixties and first few years of the Seventies.

Stephen’s involvement in the business offce was perfect timing. Even before he became manager, he brought fresh energy into a problematic scenario. The band (minus Brian) took to the road, and slowly but surely, a turnaround in their fortunes took place, as always, on the back of Mike Love, the reliable workhorse, day in and day out. In fact, if this book ever had an alternative title, it would be something like Mike Love—I’m Still Standing. (Kudos to the Rocket Man himself, Elton John, who is celebrating 50 years of music fame and fortune with a TV special titled—yup, you guessed it—“I’m Still Standing,” after his enormous hit record of the same name.)

When Stephen took over the reins and replaced Nick Grillo as manager in April, 1972, momentum was finally building as the Beach Boys’ concert tours became increasingly popular. One of Stephen’s first major decisions was to start a repayment program from the band to Brian and Marilyn for $330,000 they’d poured into the group over the previous few years (well over two million dollars in today’s money). Stephen had Brian’s back. When all the money was eventually repaid, Marilyn gratefully told Stephen, “Thanks for looking after us.”

In 1972, the Beach Boys were commanding a pitiful baseline “performance fee” of only $5,000 per show. This was just the minimum fee for showing up—it didn’t include a percentage of the gate or memorabilia sales, of course. During Stephen’s tenure as manager, he ramped up the performance fee tenfold to $50,000 per show.

The first really big check the band got in the early Seventies was for a 1974 concert in Oakland, one that didn’t include Brian. They sold out the stadium, and promoter Bill Graham sent them a check for $150,000. Stephen took a picture of that check and framed it.

November, 1965, partying in the early days before fame, fortune, drugs and the excesses of the rock-and-roll lifestyle derailed Brian Wilson. This intimate party celebrated the release of a new album, Beach Boys Party! Back row, left to right: Al and wife Lynda Jardine, Carl Wilson, Carol Botnick (friend of Marilyn Wilson), Dennis and his rst wife Carole Wilson, Ron Swallow (roadie). Front row: Mike Love, in the company of adoring fans, Bruce Johnston (who toured as Brian’s replacement), Brian with his wife Marilyn Wilson, and college freshman and future Beach Boys manager Steve Love.

In 1975, Rolling Stone magazine recognized the Beach Boys as one of the biggest concert draws in the business, and they named the band’s road crew, under the direction of workhorse Jason Raphalian, the best on tour. Stephen and the band were especially proud of that accolade.
However, touring and playing your greatest hits in every concert venue is one level of success; making creative new music is entirely another level. What was really going to put the Beach Boys back on top was Stephen’s creative and risky “Brian’s Back” campaign, a public relations masterstroke that led to the securing of a multi-million-dollar record deal with CBS Records in 1977. The new deal included a whopping $2 million cash advance against future album deliveries—worth well over $8 million in today’s dollars. The deal’s full potential was $8 million in 1977 dollars, or over $32 million today. It was one of the biggest music deals of the Seventies.

Under Stephen’s guidance, the band would complete their deal with Reprise Records and join the CBS Records family.

The entire music industry was intrigued by the prospect of the long-idle Brian Wilson returning to active duty as a composer and producer. With the sold-out concert tours and new major label deal in place, the career of America’s one-time favorite pop music group was undergoing a massive resurgence.

The viability of the CBS deal was contingent upon Brian Wilson’s active participation: CBS insisted that Brian write and produce 75% of the new music. Though the Beach Boys were still viable on the road, they needed new music to feed the insatiable public beast or they’d fade from view.

If Stephen could get the musical wizard Brian Wilson to compose again after a decade and record his matchless melodies and vocal arrangements, he might be able to orchestrate a complete resurgence of the band’s career.

If Brian still had some magic left in his battered soul, he just might be able to recreate the lush sound he was so famous for, the harmonies that were a major component of the soundtrack of the Sixties. If the dormant genius could rise to the occasion and produce hit songs as he had before, doing his own version of Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound,” the chances were good that their careers could be resurrected.

Brian cried when he signed the CBS contract. Could he miraculously create another hit record? For Brian, the thought was painful and frightening; he really wanted no part of fame or success again. After all, look what it had brought him before, nothing but heartache and disappointment. Brian had been a broken man for almost a decade.

Did he have the mettle to put his fragile self, his talent, and his soul on the line again? That was the multi-million-dollar question. We were going to see if Stephen could prop Brian up, with my help and Stan’s, and get the golden goose to produce a hit record that would resonate with the times.

A lot had happened during the years that Brian had been in bed, not writing music, totally withdrawn from the band. Cocaine and heroin had become his drugs of choice. He would call his dealers at all hours, day or night, and tell them there was a thousand dollars in the mailbox (that always guaranteed a quick delivery). Brian was a physical and emotional wreck. At his peak weight, he carried over 300 pounds on his 6-foot, 3-inch frame, had greasy hair down past his shoulders, a scraggly beard, unclipped toenails, nicotine-stained fingers, and went unbathed for days, sometimes weeks at a time.

To further complicate the challenges he faced, Brian heard voices on a regular basis, voices sometimes telling him to harm people, or that people were about to harm him.

Brian had his first nervous breakdown two days before Christmas in 1964, when he suddenly left a concert tour, vowing never to tour again. Instead, he focused on writing new music for the band; he wanted to expand creatively and write with people of his own choosing.

Brian stayed home to write music over the next couple of years, and the Beach Boys toured without him. Brian’s music evolved through several new albums in 1965 and 1966, with his masterpiece, Pet Sounds, coming out in 1966. In 1967, he was hard at work at what was to be its follow-up, Smile.

Mike was not happy with some of the esoteric lyrics Brian’s new collaborators were writing. Though he recognized that Pet Sounds was a musical masterpiece, he knew what worked for the band. He thought Brian should stick to the proven and comfortable formula of surfing, hot rods and California girls, and he was essentially correct. It took years before Pet Sounds sophisticated brilliance was broadly accepted, and it never became a commercial hit.

Since the group’s founding, Brian had always shared the credit with Mike because he was gentle, generous, and he’d looked up to his older cousin. In the early years, they shared the same vision of the band’s sound and image—fun in the sun, bikinied babes, fast cars, and the California surf style of living.

Now all Brian wanted to do was stretch out and explore further reaches artistically, to compete with the likes of the Beatles.

In 1967, Mike’s discomfort with Brian’s new musical direction caused things to get more than a little heated. As portrayed in the film Love and Mercy, they had an ugly scene, and it brought things to a head. Brian had reached his breaking point; his mental and physical reserves were stretched so thin, he was done.

At that point, Brian effectively quit the band and withdrew into a cocoon of drugs and disenchantment. He vowed he would never write songs again for the Beach Boys, and he opted to slip into oblivion. He just couldn’t take it anymore. He checked out. Why, he asked himself, should he continue shouldering the awesome responsibility that comes with writing the songs, doing the arrangements, teaching the others their parts, both vocally and instrumentally, slaving away in the studio, all the while dealing with a changing audience that was seemingly turning on him and his music?

Years went by and Brian stayed in his cocoon, sometimes not leaving his bedroom for months except to go downstairs to the kitchen and eat (and eat and eat). Brian had hit his lowest point. He was in the throes of addiction, a seemingly hopeless lost cause, and he’d been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He had absolutely no interest in life, love, music or anything of value. Being a productive member of society was dead last on Brian’s list of priorities. He was not interested at all in writing or recording new music, singing, or touring—those were the very things that had overwhelmed his childlike, overly generous, sensitive, and creative nature.

He was a defeated shell of a man, simply waiting to die. If ever there was a modern-day tragic Shakespearean character, Brian filled the role. He had, in the vernacular of surfers, wiped out.

Psychologist Eugene Landy was hired for the first time in 1975, but he was fired by Stephen after his fees climbed to over $22,000 a month. Marilyn reached the end of her rope in 1976, when she felt Brian was a danger to himself and to the family. She threatened to have him committed to a mental institution.

Stephen pleaded with Marilyn to delay committing Brian and to give it one more try, take one last chance to save Brian. He asked her permission to hire his younger brother, Stan, to enter their home and drag Brian out of bed—against his will, if necessary—to try and save Brian’s life. Marilyn acquiesced, thank God.

When Brian’s youngest brother, Carl, learned about the arrangement, he enthusiastically said, “Smart move, Steve.”

Mike was guardedly optimistic. His brother Stan was a professional basketball player who had a stint with the Lakers, but did that make him a qualified protector—essentially a life preserver?

Stephen lobbied hard. “Listen, Stan is our brother, he’s Brian’s cousin, and he’s absolutely trustworthy. He has Brian’s best interests at heart. That kind of loyalty isn’t available anywhere else, at any price.”

Mike agreed.

Stan’s duties included making Brian take a daily shower, driving him to his psychiatrist, getting him to a gym for exercise, watching his diet, and eventually getting him back into the recording studio to write and record again for the first time in years. This was a monumental task, but Stan, who had come off a two-year stint with the Lakers, had the stamina and the discipline.

It wasn’t smooth going at first. After years of not working and not getting out of bed, Brian had an aversion to doing anything except eating, sleeping, and taking drugs. He was rich and famous, used to making his own rules, and hellbent on

fulfilling his subconscious death wish.

Brian steadily fought the idea of having a keeper, and he tried to fire Stan at the least provocation, ranting, “This is my house. Leave me alone! You’re fired!”

Marilyn would always push back. “You either do what Stan tells you to do, or you’re going to the mental hospital.”

Clearly, Stan needed more backup in the extremely demanding, nearly impossible task of saving a lost soul who would go to any length to get drugs. That’s when Stan suggested to Stephen that they bring me aboard to help.

This was the situation I walked into when Stan first brought me to Brian’s mansion. I was hired the day after Stan introduced me to Brian and Marilyn, and Stephen’s dynamic duo, as he referred to us, was in place. Stephen’s "No Drugs in Brian’s Life" policy was implemented with extreme urgency. “No drugs” wasn’t just a policy, it was our law. No drugs of any kind, anytime, anywhere, from anybody. Ever, period!

Marilyn agreed.

Stephen declared that if Stan and I couldn’t keep drugs out of Brian’s life, no one could. He said this with the resolute confidence of a born leader. He had sworn us to our task.

Our mission was to save Brian’s life, a daunting undertaking, and we took it seriously. We monitored Brian around the clock. It wasn’t easy. After all, Brian is a genius, and he would prove to be extremely crafty and resourceful when it came to feeding his drug habit. Brian didn’t hesitate to approach complete strangers and beg them for drugs. Many were all too keen to accommodate him just because of who Brian is, a famous and legendary pop star. This was just one element of our ever-challenging task. Being vigilant 24/7 was the name of the game for our crew.

Stephen’s last-ditch effort to avoid institutionalizing Brian worked, despite some surprising actions by Brian’s own brothers, and despite every wily effort Brian made to get drugs. Brian did come back from the edge, and Stephen’s "Brian’s Back" campaign made the band richer than it had been in its heyday in the Sixties.

If a Hall of Fame for rock managers existed, Stephen likely would have been inducted. Instead, all too soon, he was exiled. I’ll tell you the story, for I’m partly responsible for what happened; in my view, however, Stephen could be considered an unsung hero.

Tried again to post the pics. Can't get them to copy on to the site.
Anybody got some suggestions as to how I can get that accomplished?
Thanks.

Thank's for sharing!!! If you e-mail them to me, on henrik.pallin@gmail.com I'll upload them for you.

“In 1967...At that point, Brian effectively quit the band...he opted to slip into oblivion...He checked out.” Brian had been “in bed for years...not writing music.”

??? So his OBVIOUS work on Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf’s Up, Holland, Carl and the Passions, etc isn’t Brian? I can’t believe people are still trying to pass on this myth...a myth that has been so easily disproven countless times now. Brian was still doing arrangements, he was still teaching his bandmates harmony parts to his songs. Yeesh, the 1968 Set which came out yesterday is just continued evidence that Brian was still very present on post SMiLE albums. Wild Honey and Friends are some of Brian’s most cohesively sounding albums ever (not to mention on Smiley SMiLE, Friends, and Wild Honey he shares the songwriting credits on almost every song (all but four songs he’s not credited and one of those being a cover song)!

No doubt Brian had his issues during this time, and no doubt he did withdraw at times, and his presence on post SMiLE albums wanes with each release after Friends. Yet he is vividly present on nearly every Beach Boys album ever released. People love to perpetuate this myth that Brian stayed in bed for years not doing anything...when the reality of what actually happened is FAR more interesting than this bed myth could ever be.

"contempt prior to investigation is unfair and quite honestly BS."  I agree...100%.  Knowing that you're a walkin'/talkin' proponent of a "natural high" seems to make entire sense in terms of your 'take' on things regarding this topic of discussion.  It says that you're gullible and easily fooled.  Meanwhile much of what you've shared here tips the scales in my favour.  Your posts are all one needs to read in order to deduce that you don't know what the f*** you're talking about when it comes to THIS SPECIFIC story.  Then there's this chapter of twaddle.  I'll insert myself where needed.

I give Ron credit for coming onto this site and reading through our various responses.  I think the main problem with the book is simple.  Ron's source of information seemingly is Rocky and, to some degree, the Love camp.  Rocky was only involved for a short period of time and has shown on this site a propensity for braggadocious postings.  Thus, had he (Rocky) collaborated with someone with an extensive understanding of the group's history, much of Rocky's BS would have been filtered out.  Anyone with a good amount of expertise on the history of the Beach Boys would realize that Mike's role was less than this book would seem to have you believe.  Mike has had his share of mental health problems over the decades, for example.  Lee pointed out a number of other inaccuracies. 

I have not read the book.  I have read the part that Ron just posted.  I have read Rocky's posts on this site a couple of years ago (has it been that long?).  That's enough for me.

It's just so blatantly obvious that Rocky's just another clown (quite similar to the luHvster) trying to make cashola on Brian's coattails and got the blessings of Mike Love if he made Mike look good in the book. In fact, several passages in the post sounds like Mike wrote them himself. How very sickening. It's just the unpleasant icing on the stale cake as to why I will not waste time reading this book that only succeeds in trying to rewrite history.

‘....and Al later composed an unfinished original about his wife entitled, “Lady Lynda,” which Brian helped him finish and the band recorded. It has been on their live stage play list ever since.’


No it hasn’t.

Same here

Right? Those parts about Brian apparently doing nothing but laying in bed for years seem to be lifted straight from Mike's laughably pathetic 2005 lawsuit against Brian.

Rocky is the patsy for a love hit job....

.......And breath.

It’s a lovely game....

I have to say that I give a tip of the hat to Ron for coming in and joining the discussion, but after reading the excerpts posted so far, some of those statements are just completely wrong or out of line factually and otherwise.

As much as I respect the fact Ron is here taking the questions and comments about the book, some of the "facts" and statements seen so far simply do not line up with the actual facts and truth. And I wasn't going to go there, but some of the comments in the book's excerpts do indeed sound like either the nonsense written in Mike's 2005 lawsuit that got chucked out of every court that heard it, or even perhaps more blatant, some of the PR nonsense that has come from the Love group and his more ardent supporters and defenders in the past decade or more. Key phrases, comments, the wording, etc...it could be a press release.

And it's still baffling how a book could do a 180 degree flip in a few years to turn into a glowing praise of Mike Love. It's fine to praise Mike and his role in the band, but some of those quotes are the same kind of sycophantry that has been and usually gets debunked on arrival when it appears.

Ya think that I might have been a little rough on dear ol' Ron Craig?  Well guess what?  I have no time for people who think because they've had something of a 'hand' in tossing together a few words, ideas and semi-fictional stories provided by ill-informed 1/2 milers, part-timers and a host of others looking to have their bottoms smooched, buffed and polished, that we will idly just sit back and encourage yet another barrage of pure unadulterated bull excrement to be wafted down upon the great unwashed.

The guy is as transparent as they come.  He admits he doesn't know the people he's 'writing' about, that he's merely some level of 'fan-boy' and that he's somehow qualified here because he's stood on or near a stage professionally.  Whoop-dee-doo.  His sources for accumulating and deciphering facts are clearly and desperately 'wanting'.  This tripe wasn't even ready to be proof-read and edited let alone printed.  Yet he's in here chastising folks who haven't read the obvious foolishness at hand. 

To me?  THAT doesn't deserve a pass.  It does encourage scorn though.  [and plenty of it.]  Better to call a spade a spade.  If Ron wants to save his reputation he should do everything he can to make the point to the powers that be that this 'book' is not ready to hit the shelves.  If it does though...bind it like a little girl's diary and then don't provide any keys with which to open it.  Trees will die for THIS!!!???!!!???!!!

There otta be a law.  ::)

Lee is da man! :bw

Like it or hate it. Insult me, as you wish. However if you haven't read the entire book, you're just blowing smoke, aren't you?

If this all over one chapter, how can I take your insults seriously?  True enough, I strolled onto your turf as a Johnny come lately. However I've earned the right to call myself credible in Show biz. I've earned the right to have an opinion about Rocky's interaction with the band, and I'll stick to my guns about my work on the product.
It is after all, a product and I'm in the entertainment business. Stomp your feet and complain all you wish. I'm used to people from sniping from the sidelines. Comes with the territory.

Mike Love is a snake who set you and Rocky up.

I repeat. I've never met Mike Love. Never talked to the man. My opinion of him comes from a life long career in sho biz. I'm hardly a big shot, but I know talent, I know management, I know the record and film business from the inside, from hard won lessons learned experientially in that field.
I'm not guessing any more than a world cup sailor would be guessing about a round the world sailing trip he was reviewing.

Nobody set me up.

Have you read the book or just the one chapter?

From what Rocky teased here before you cleaned it up and made it coherent, it was crap...

Ron, if you post an excerpt from your book and the knowledgeable people on this forum find it overflowing with misconceptions and errors, what are we to think of the rest of the book?  In the parts we haven't read, do you correct the aforementioned misconceptions and errors?  Perhaps there is a subsequent chapter entitled "Correcting the Crap We Passed Off As FACT in an Earlier Chapter"...

Yes I have.  I've seen your posts.  They bury you under an avalanche of misinformation, assumptions, preconceptions, and redacted sources of, in the final analyses, fact-free foolishness.  I don't give a flying nun whether or not you've spent time in show business.  That doesn't make you a writer, a researcher, credible or even honest.  Then you toss this sample chapter of yawn-inducing 'sycopathetic' and misconstrued 'gobbledeegoop' onto the 'pile' and have the audacity to suggest that it all magically, somehow, against all odds, gets 'better' .  The only way this gets better is if the book is used like an old Sears and Roebuck catalogue out in the hunting camp outhouse.  Go peddle your papers to the totally and completely uninformed.  Maybe you can pass this hogwash off on them.

This will be my last communication with you regarding this useless piece of sh!t you have the unmitigated audacity to refer to as a "book".  [good thing we didn't step in it.]

Let’s go get a beer with OSD!

 :woot :woot  and I'm pickin' up the tab!  ;D

You are guaranteed to stay small. To quote Bob Dylan, another one of my favorites. "He who is not busy being born is busy dying."

I'm sorry you won't check out the book. Your loss.

No hard feeling or insult absorbed over here. We're all entitled to our opinion. Your opinion about the book is an opinion about nothing since you haven't read it.
I was taught to be polite to strangers, and that's about as polite as I can be. I sincerely hope the rest of the Smile board, a knowledgeable and worthwhile bunch it seems, won't be jaundiced by your uninformed dismissal.

Sorry Ron, I know your intentions are honourable BUT there are so many inaccuracies in the Chapter you posted , I literally gave up with the quote that Rhonda was the first No1 ??? So I Get Around didn't exist, sorry but a book about a bloke (who's credibility is questionable to say the least) has absolutely no interest in my world .

Ron - I'm reposting this in case it got lost in the mix, or if you simply chose to ignore it and not comment that's fine too.





With that out of the way, I'd like to quote one excerpt you posted from the book with follow-up questions and observations if you'd choose to answer and dialogue on the topic:




My opinion: This is exactly the type of Mike Love hype that his PR machine (for lack of a better term) has been spreading in recent years, and which can be spotted in everything from local "weekender" type local newspapers promoting his gigs, to fan message boards, to social media, even onward and upward into published books and various bios and articles. In short, it's an overstatement to say the least. To say the worst, I won't go there - But it's easy to factually debunk this kind of PR hype and ballyhoo as exactly that. It's a shame because for all of the credits Mike genuinely gets and deserves, it's the overreaching and attempts to grab more credit and praise than might by due in reality that irks quite a few fans of the band.

With that said, Rocky was indeed here and posting actively around the end of 2015 into early 2016. While he was here, he even posted excerpts from what was then his manuscript of the "Wipeout" book, and would tease various parts of it and relate stories from the upcoming book. It was also connected to Stephen Love - Both in the concept and focus of the book, and also the sourcing so it seemed. Rocky even hinted that the upcoming book would be in part about how Mike Love screwed over his brother(s) and cousin Brian through the years, and Rocky teased several specific examples.

The case of Mike's songwriting lawsuit was addressed. Rocky said he had an audio tape of a conversation. He said the details would come out about what that was, and the implications on Mike going forward. That was one of the bigger teasers in the whole saga of Rocky posting here. Potentially explosive claims or even details about that case, we were told.

Most of Rocky's original posts focused on a very negative portrayal of Mike Love, especially zeroing in on the relationships and dealings with his brother(s)...and how Mike ended up almost ruining his brother by getting involved in bringing charges against him which were eventually dropped completely and a full exoneration was issued by the courts.

So all of that was in Rocky's initial posts and the excerpts of his book which he posted roughly three years ago.

And now it is even more than a 180 degree flip (if that's scientifically possible...) to where Rocky is spouting hype and ballyhoo and praise for Mike Love as all but the savior and messiah of the Beach Boys, the "glue" that held it all together amidst the shortcomings of the Wilson brothers and whatnot...and this is the same Rocky talking about the same Mike Love who he had little or no praise or very little in the way of positive things to say about him a few years ago in public posts.

So, what gives? What flipped Rocky? What changed? The publishers wanting to go another direction explains some of the current contents and focus of the book, but what could possibly have happened in the past 2-3 years to flip Rocky's opinions of Mike Love so drastically and obviously?

The proof of the flip is this is the same Rocky writing about the same people and topics on the record in 2015-16 versus this current book, for those interested in proof.

Mike Love could (and would) file a lawsuit. Dennis and Carl can’t.

Let's not pay respect to this reynaldo whoever. We don't owe any respect to this tool. He's tool & troll. This is the dullest thread with no point.  You, folks, really interested to read trash like that dummy's posts, banal, typical as hell, "nothing new" type posts, filled with mistakes? The way he posts is reaaaal snoozer, let's not deny. He's "polite" CLEARLY to sell his book, it's not genuine & he doesn't care, doesn't like BBs AT ALL. It's FAKE. So...he said "he grew up with Beach Boys music". And? Everybody can say it, it's very easy. It's, like, the banalest thing anybody can ever say.
Let's be mean towards this tool. It's the best treatment for creatures like that.

I just went on Amazon and posted a review, based on the one chapter I read here.

If Rocky and Stephen Love and whoever else tells the truth or gives factual accounts that can be backed up, and Mike doesn't like it, that would fall into the category of "tough sh*t" for Mike or whoever else. Unless telling the truth is grounds for a lawsuit. Or, unless some form of a contract were signed with a confidentiality clause, and going public with information would violate that contract, which in this case I doubt there were any contracts of the sort in place when Rocky and Stephen were writing publicly a few years ago.

So Mike could bark all he wants about threatening lawsuits, it's probably nothing new, but if these guys are telling the truth there would be nothing on which to actually sue them. The most critical standard for filing a lawsuit on either libel or slander is that the statements being made are false. If they're true...."tough sh*t".

I haven't read the book. I read the chapter posted here.

There were no doubt, neccesary, logical and perhaps even ethical and legal reasons for tidying up Rocky's narrative as was on display here back in the day.

But when the book starts coming at the story from a historical perspective, and the facts are at worst incorrect, and at best biased, then the book will have a hard time standing up, especially in places like this where a lot of people can be described as experts on the band.

I think the sweet spot for a book from Rocky, would have been in those intimate moments where he was travelling with Brian, or that story when they went to a bar (and I think Dylan was there??) These stories, or stories of clowns being beaten, could be entertaining, and could be taken with a grain of salt for Rocky's creative license. Any attempt to try and manipulate facts about the general history of the band is a losing proposition.

One thing, I do want to say, even though It's unlikely I'll purchase the book. Rocky said he was going to write a book, and he did. I can imagine it's a challenging task, so good for him for getting it done.

If I go to a restaurant and I get sick from the food, no one would say "well, good for the chef for at least cooking your meal, even if the meat was bad."

I kind of see what you're saying, and it has to be an incredible undertaking and I tip my hat to most authors who sit down and type out hundreds of pages, edit it, and work hard to get it published. But part of writing a non-fiction book is getting the facts right. I do want to look at the bright side of things, but I also see the travesty of publishing a book that is rife with wrong information. I agree with you that the book will have a hard time standing up because of these historical inaccuracies. It is weird to me that a book whose sole audience (I think) is hardcore Beach Boys fans who know the history backwards and forwards.

Rab is back!  :bw

Howdy SB! The Friends Copyright release has me grinning from ear to ear. What a great time to be a fan!

Great set with a smile bonus track!

Yeah! And I hear there's a Live set coming out too? Can't wait!

Posting a chapter for perusal is much appreciated.

But with all due respect, the bar keeps getting moved. Previously, it was "how can you criticize the book without having read any of it?", and now, after a chapter is posted, it has morphed into "how can you criticize the book after having read only one chapter?"

To be clear, nobody is publishing an actual official full review of this book after not reading it or reading only one chapter. But when really ancient, long-since-debunked myths and provable factual inaccuracies are found in one chapter, I think it's then fair for people to take a pass and to criticize the work. It would not be fair to actually publish a review in a journal, newspaper, etc. without reading the book.

I think it is becoming more and more clear that Rocky Pamplin's admittedly insider view of the band for a few years was and is most effectively conveyed by anecdotes and stories as related within the context of *another* book on the band that has a wider scope. Indeed, this describes the Gaines "Heroes and Villains" book.

An author first has to have the story and facts regarding the band straight. Then, they have to be able to vet and feel out stories and anecdotes related by people such as Pamplin.

Now, to be fair, while there have been some passing references to this book telling the story of the band, it is, I guess, generally being marketed as a "Rocky Pamplin Autobiography" written with a co-writer. So I guess we can't expect someone writing their own autobiography to then hand it off to someone who actually knows about the Beach Boys to turn it into a biography on the band.

But, whatever the book is, it does delve into the BB story, and that chapter has grossly inaccurate information.

Separately, there are number of obviously subjective opinions expressed in the chapter that I think many fans/experts/historians would say call into question many elements of the work. Specifically, it's portrayal of Mike Love as "holding the band together", and other glowingly positive statements about Mike Love. To be clear, I'm not looking for a bash job. Even folks who have written books from a decidedly non-Love-centric point of view such as Jon Stebbins or even Timothy White or Peter Ames Carlin have given Mike his due.

But I'm sorry, when Mike takes the license to use the "Beach Boys" name, brings in David Marks, and within the span a few months both Carl Wilson and Al Jardine are gone from the band, that is the *exact opposite* of holding the band together.

Further, it's generally agreed upon that it was Carl Wilson that was the peacekeeper that held things together for decades, and also held things together musically. Note that when Carl left in 1981-82, the band went off the deep end in terms of quality of the live shows. *And*, when Carl passed away, the Al-Mike thing immediately completely crumbled.

Well, to put it another way, you don't win a Nobel Prize from attempted chemistry

On Amazon, the book currently has 6 reviews - 4 give it 5 stars, 2 give it one star.  So,  that's 22 "points" from 6 reviews, or a  3.67 average.  Yet Amazon says the overall rating is a 4.1 - can't anyone do math?

Wouldn't be surprised if Mike had this piece of crap for sale at his shows along with his god awful Xmas album.   ::)

Hi All,
Thanks for all your responses to the chapter we posted with the Publisher's permission on the Smile site. From a marketing point of view I think we "screwed the pooch." My mistake. It was foolish to think that a summary of a take on BB's would be gently received by hard core fans. Good on ya I suppose.
I chose to answer this particular post because it was the meanest and most insulting, and oddly enough the most enjoyable for me to read. It singles me out as a "tool" and someone you and your site should be "mean" to.
If I were to take that to heart and part of me does, I'm only human, after all, I would be devastated by such a "call to arms."
It strikes me as school boyish and petty. We all know how to deal with a bully. As an adult I'm smart enough to simply walk away.
I'll say it again, "contempt prior to investigation" is a monumental waste of time. It's partially equivalent to the story of 3 blind men examining an elephant. None of the even come close to getting an accurate view of the beast in question.
Berating their discovered viewpoints would be cruel and pointless and life is too short.
Thanks for sharing whoever you are. You don't know me and I don't know you. The one difference is I wish you well. Sorry you didn't like my posts or my efforts to illuminate the BBs and the parts of their career I attempted to bring some insight to.
When and if you ever read the entire offering I'll be happy to chat more but for now, Adieu.

Promise?

Thanks for this. Point well taken. You I would encourage to read the book. I'm neither a tool nor someone to be "mean" to as someone quipped. The book is pretty darn entertaining. I actually think you'd like it. It was in fact Rocky's intimate moments, either poignant or edgy or, quite frankly, harsh and even ugly, that are touched on that make it fresh and never before revealed. Like him or not, Rocky was there, at a pivotal time in Brian's and BB's history. His recounting of what went on from his point of view is interesting from all kinds of perspectives.

Ta. If need be will insult again, ha. :police: Say hello to rocky dork pimple. Bye

I must admit, grudgingly, I like your style. Are we having fun yet?

You "have fun" with smb. else. I quit this dull thread.

Luv it. And you are genuinely funny. Gonna take your ball and go home? I'm disappointed. Perhaps you should write a book. You know, get a little skin in the game. Maybe you'll have the pleasure of being sniped at by someone like you, who won't read it and bashes it and you. It's an eye opener, believe me. (I forgot, you don't) Oops

I guess it gets dull when it's at your expense?

Wait a second. I'm curious. How can you post a review on Amazon? My understanding is that you cannot post a review on Amazon unless you've purchased the book on Amazon?

 Am I incorrect?

I have a hard time believing that anyone can post a review without some proof that they've seen the material. I don't expect the world to be fair, but that would be an egregious example of an unfair forum.

What am I missing?

BTW, if you went out of the way to bash the book and only read one chapter, I find that monumentally sad. Get a life. Check out my reply Range Rover. Goes for you too.

Tnx.

Reynaldo, I would be interested to read your book. Your take on BB history is rather different from my own, but so what. Rocky Pamplin clearly has some stories to tell, and I am very curious to hear them. If it were available as an e-book, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Is that going to happen though? Because I'm afraid I'm not quite at the level of interest where I'm willing to shell out for an expensively imported paperback. Also, I'm not sure if this is particularly your fault, but the chapter you published clearly wasn't the best one to share with this particular board. It consists entirely of exposition, and readers of this forum already know the story backwards, and - you will have noted - aren't terribly tolerant of interpretations of it that conflict with their own.

ETA: Note that I wrote all this before seeing you acknowledge the very point I was making at the top of this page.

Wow the craziest thing is reading this posted chapter, and then going back to the Rocky thread of 2016, especially near the end where it becomes so nonsensical. Rock is just spewing out hatred towards Mike and Stan.

It would be really interesting to know what changed. Was there a reconciliation between Stephen, and Stan and Mike? This would have changed the tone 180 degrees?

When you read Rocky's posts, there is just no reasonable answer as to why he would be writing a book that cast Mike and Stan in a positive light. So what transpired??

I've asked Ron the same thing about the 180 degree flip multiple times - Maybe there is no "reasonable" answer or maybe it's something that got designated not fit for public consumption.

To be honest, Ron seems to be ignoring the questions about that specific topic, which for some of us is the most baffling and most obvious point of the whole saga. And it goes against everything Rocky wrote and said when he was posting here at the end of 2015 into 2016. We see a total, complete, 180 degree, Jekyll and Hyde style flip in roughly two years. No idea why these questions are being ignored, especially when they're asked respectfully and without name-calling and the like.

Ron? What gives?

William, were you here and reading Rocky's own posts 2 years ago? If not, go back and read them. It's all there.

It's not a case of tolerance of opinion and whatever people choose to tag this board community with (intolerant? Haha. Compared to what? ) ...It's a case of the SAME GUY - ROCKY -  plugging a book called Wipeout and posting excerpts here previously, and now the "facts" and opinions offered by the same Rocky in this recent book totally contradict what he said and thought and wrote earlier! Not just contradict, but it's as if a whole new perspective took over Rocky in the past two years and his "fact-based opinions" completely changed.

We're wondering what happened.

It really is the most interesting angle to this story.
We know 100% that Steve and Rock were close, in around the 2016 postings, and I assume still are.
There was some speculation of a possible reunion between Steve and his brothers when Milton passed away?
Steve's criticism of Mike on 'Man vs Clown' seemed to have let up around the time Rocky was banned here.
So if the tension thawed between Steve, Mike and Stan, would Steve, have then influenced Rocky to completely flip the narrative that was on display here, which was more, or less;
Stan=traitor
Mike=Evil
While keeping the theme of
Steve=Great, betrayed by the band
Rocky=purveyor of tough love needed to save Brian

Just curious GF if there was something specific that got Rocky banned, or was it just a general sense that he was getting out of hand?

He's answered it a few times. The publisher didn't want to go that route.

He did? OK - So the publisher forced a man to change and reverse a majority of his opinions on two of the major players in his own book-biography-life story in order to take a more acceptable "route"? Wow. That would be selling out, wouldn't it?

Either way, more specific questions were posed to Ron and are still unanswered. Such as, what happened to flip Rocky 180 degrees like this? If a publisher flipped him to get a contract to publish a book...is that a positive thing to be promoting? "Say this instead of how you've felt for decades and how you really feel, and we'll give you a deal...otherwise, no deal". Or maybe the Rocky back in 2016 posting excerpts from his earlier book manuscripts was full of sh*t? Which do you think it is?

At this point, which Rocky should we believe? The one who dictated and posted his memoirs and facts here back in 2016, or the one who dictated and is having his memoirs posted here in 2018?

We got two different versions of not only a man's opinions, but related facts as well. Not a good sign. Shall we flip a coin to decide which version (or which Rocky) to believe?

But does that really make sense, in terms of completely changing the take on two of the major characters? I can see, perhaps, a publisher wanting to tone down the characterization of Mike and Stan. But to completely change it? It opens the author up to a huge credibility problem, can't see how that's of benefit to either author or publisher.

It just seems to me, like there is more to this than 'the publisher wanted to go another route.'

Perhaps a good point to comment again GF. As mentioned, Rocky was spewing nonsense about Mike 2 years ago on this site but then does a 180 in the book.

Back then he is RockRush (or the like) on some Beach Boys related fan site. In 2018 he is a printed author using his legal name on the cover of a book.  (In all honesty the numbers reading are probably similar) surely the company behind book would demand more caution with what is printed rather than a poster (Rocky) on a website?

Mike has history with books and lawsuits. (Landy’s/ Brian IJWMFTTs). A smaller publisher probably doesn’t have deep pockets to fight off a lawsuit regardless of who is right or wrong or what can or can’t be printed.

The idea of selling out, that is money or something of that nature, being exchanged seems to be a plausible theory as far as why someone would be motivated to completely change their side of the story.  People can connect the dots as they see fit, but really a direction change of this nature doesn't seem to make much sense without power and money directing a change of this magnitude. "The publisher didn't want to go that route" is a pretty big, juicy nothing burger, but I understand completely that the real facts here will probably never come to light, even though logic would dictate which way the wind seems to be blowing with the major changes that were made and who stood to benefit or not.

I wonder if Rocky had to sign an NDA way back in the '70s when he worked with the band. Don't NDAs generally exist to prevent dirt-dishing bios by insiders from coming to light?

Heads you win tails I lose...bad news.

:lol Sorry I couldn't resist

Oh the real uncensored Rocky wrote his story 2 years ago. Far more telling about him than the puff piece in the book I’m sure. No offence to you Ron, but it is a bit like watching a train wreck (Rocky’s posts and chapters) then reading about it 2 years later from someone who has been told the story. It just ain’t the same.

This is it right here.

Thank you Craig.

So, Reynoldo (or Ron), which you prefer....that is the reason I likely will never check this book out. The guy who was posting those things back in 2016 would not be saying the stuff he's saying in the book as relating to Mike Love. I personally don't despise Mike Love like some on here, but I'm also for some consistency. Or at least, if there's a change of opinion on a topic or person, a mention of why! And in this case, it seems as though this book indicates there has been a 180 on Mike in Rocky's opinion. However - and this is another reason why I'm sketchy on this book - dollars to donuts I'd bet you that if somebody sat down with Rocky and talked about Mike Love it wouldn't sound a word like what's in this book. And I also bet it'd likely sound a heck of a lot more like the craziness he posted on this board a few years a go.

So, I welcome Ron to "correct" me on this, but this whole thing smells. And those in this community who know me know I'm not one to latch onto random theories in Beach Boys fandom, even when they end up being correct (Craig and SMiLE Brian know what I mean). It just seems like something changed with Rocky and his book vis-à-vis Mike, and frankly, I think we are being sold a bill of goods.

Ron - yes, I posted a review on Amazon without purchasing the book.  You posted one chapter of the book on this site - I read that chapter.  On Amazon, I didn't pretend to have read the entire book, I said that one chapter was enough for me.  You posted that one chapter here, looking for reactions.  My reaction to the one chapter is legitimate.  You've got a lot more in common with Rocky than I thought.

Yeah, watch, it turns out it IS Rocky :lol

Rocky Reynaldo Pamplin? ;)

With all the Rs in the names of the two authors, it might as well be Talk Like a Pirate Day

 :lol

Someone call Al Jardine, cause there's a Pirate's Tale to be had!

Beats the "woo woo" machine by far...you can go blind from that!

TRULY bizarre to write a garbage book full of long debunked inaccuracies and false portrayals of the dead and then come onto a forum to make weird spiteful comebacks to people.

Isn't it peculiar how people get upset when they're trying to find the actual definition of something and are instead sent to an urbandictionary page written by a middle schooler?

Billy’s last post is worth more than this whole book...

But of course! :D

Anybody seen epic fail film "American Family" (2000)? It should be done in Blu-ray. About time. Agree with jackjachman, with 1st paragraph.

Well that was short lived, but as you are back in, the poster has not caused me any offence (yet). I might not agree with the book or topic but what’s wrong with a bit of good natured courtesy? Must be my ancestry.

It's free board, Pretty Funky. I can be back in anytime I wish in any thread. Besides, many people read the initial rocky thread, kept posting daily *despite* hating him, thinking he's clown. You'd been around then, you should know.

I don't see any point in being nasty to Ron.  He wrote a book with Rocky, they got it published, and we (as a group) generally are in agreement that we don't think it's a very good book, from what we've read. I respect Ron's right to write a book, he should respect our right to have a negative view of the book.  

The perfect summary of how I feel too. No need to be disrespectful to him, even if we disagree with him.

Anybody likes "Sloop John B"?

I'm not saying we need to respect him as a writer, just as a person (and even if we don't respect him at a core level, we can still just show some courtesy to him)...just like Reynaldo should respect and be courteous to every poster on this forum without stooping to sniping at people for this or that. I think some name calling was done toward Reynaldo on some previous posts and that just doesn't need to happen.

I'm with Rab.  have no issue with Ron/Reynaldo*. As for Rocky, well, I think the original post with him is still on the board.  I banned him for a reason. **** that guy.

My thing is, if someone is disrespectful towards others unprovoked, they're gonna get the business from me (as the saying goes). Otherwise, if it is provoked it's fair game until it gets out of hand.

*Unless it turns out it IS Rocky and this is  hell of a troll job.

Back 2 topic.

You're absolutely correct, Rab. We don't need to go back to the way it was when the agdster spewed his arrogance all over the place.  :smokin

My thing is I avoid going off on people unless they directly attack me, but as I am human like the rest (most?) of us, I can't always abide by that. Case in point:


Oh God no. Glad that "Love Stain" is gone. I should've done it sooner but I let him lie to me and manipulate me in the guise of "friendship". Never will make that mistake again.

On Nov. 20th I first asked about the flip in Mike's portrayal in Rocky's book, and Guitarfool posted a similar question, comparing Rocky's posts on this board of a couple of years ago to what has been reported in the final edition coauthored by Ron.



Ron answered thusly:



But when CenturyDeprived made the following observations:


We most likely got the real reason for the flip in this reply from Ron:


I would like to thank Ron for conducting himself in a courteous, respectful, and diplomatic manner on this board, especially in the face of numerous attacks. He was obviously quite naive thinking an error filled Chapter 2 would be greeted with accolades, as well as perhaps not recognizing the level of distain held for Mr. Pamplin due to a number of his past actions. Interestingly, Ron showed up on the Pet Sounds Forum three days ago, offering to answer any questions, but so far there haven't been any takers.

Can someone kindly offer a link to the legendary Rocky Pamplin meltdown?

Last post through to first. Quite a few meltdowns from memory.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=9448;sa=showPosts;start=0

Thanks, PF. Interesting chap.

Long May you run “myke Luhv” from the truth. (Last throwback post to the time where OSD was a “troll” for telling the truth) :bw

 ::)

Had to get it out of my system...

Is Reynaldo banned or does he just not wanna talk about how "Rocky's" mind changed so drastically on Doctor Love? And how apparently that "tape" or whatever he had that would blow that whole songwriting case out of the water just ceased to exist. Sure is odd.

Threat of litigation talks...

Exactly. It's a legal landmine for everybody involved.

And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense.

If the people being sued are telling the truth, there is no case. It's that simple.

So assume Rocky's claims are true, and he got the ubiquitous threats from Mike Love and his lawyers...If he told the truth, Mike and the lawyers could go sh*t in their collective hat for lack of a better term.

If Rocky was lying, then yeah - You can't publish known lies about someone without almost expecting legal action.

So where is that audio tape, what happened to it?

On the same shelf in the BBs vault as Wrinkles and Murry's Help Me, Rhonda rant.

 :lol Nice.

I was thinking it could also be a 60's-style Mission Impossible scenario that played out somewhere in the Nevada desert:

(https://metvcdn.metv.com/mSYx9-1500316134-9018-list_items-mi_tapesmoke.jpg)

 :lol :lol :lol The only problem is that there's no room left in Mike's hat. It's been so full of sh*t for decades just like the rest of his stupid hat collection.  ;)

"And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense."

It's never as simple as that.  Even if the truth is on your side, the cost of defending yourself from a lawsuit is enormous.  Most people will give it up rather than face the time and costs of attorneys' fees in defending themselves from a lawsuit.  If you are sued and you win, you don't get your attorneys' fees back, they are down the drain.  And if a judge makes a decision that turns a case upside down, even if that decision is wrong, that is one of the risks of a lawsuit.  The road to good intentions is paved with all kinds of bad and incorrect outcomes in lawsuits, especially in sunny California.

Sigh ... Seeing moronic comments like the above makes me embarrassed to have been a part of this thread. I don't understand why the mods allow this type of immature nonsense.

Side note: this is also probably why the brand licensing issue will never be touched with a ten foot pole.

Also - I'm sure I've seen dozens tv shows/movies of people getting paid off and contracts drawn up in exchange for silence and photos/video to simply vanish, etc. Feels like we're in a Dallas or Columbo episode or something. We'll certainly never know the real story here, but it would seem that an about face and change of tone doesn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. I'll just have to assume the tape (and Rocky's original intentions/tone as stated in his messages on this board) went into the void of the "lost chapter" in Mike's bio where Mike -with great sincerity and conviction - talked about regretting filing the failed 2005 lawsuit against Brian and all the embarrassing details of that.

Exactly.

There's not a rule against it.  I'd rather not go overboard in the name of censorship....if I canned a post just because I found it annoying or I didn't like it, there'd be a good portion of the board missing and a lot of people complaining.

Seconded.

So the suggestion is, and it's no surprise for those who have followed this band's history, that anyone who might have something to share or publish or write in general has to walk on eggshells out of fear that Mike Love and his lawyers will start throwing lawsuits and c&d orders at them to try to stifle anything he doesnt want to have made public.

That's nice, isn't it? Avoid things by having an atmosphere of fear and discourage people from talking by threatening them through the legal system instead of dealing with the issues like a man.

Real class, there. Positivity personified.

OSD was having a laugh in these times...

 :lol :lol :woot :whatever :thumbsup :wave :kiss :tm :happydance :love :rock :wink Uninsultable, that's what I am. You, of all people should not read my posts because man, you take things wayyyy to seriously. One would think you learned your lesson by now, but no. You must be a lot of fun, man.  :p

I do have to say that I imagine this type of stuff happens all the time in the industry with wealthy people, and while stuff like the 2005 lawsuit and Mike's general litigiousness inevitably leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, I could easily see any number of other celebs doing potential behind the scenes legal stuff if they knew a book was possibly coming out with unfavorable insider stuff. None of us know what happened here, but I can of course understand if Mike would not want certain stuff public, and I wouldn't fault him for it, just as I'm sure the other band members and any number of celebrities would likely feel the same if it was about them. But yes, point taken that somebody in general being overly sue happy is problematic in all sorts of ways, especially if there's a vengeful quality.

I wonder what the reaction would be to the book and its contents in its current incarnation if Rocky had never came here and did his unfiltered and apparently sincere postings awhile back.

Doesn't make it right, but it's actually quite common.

No doubt - But it's a shame to have such a tag attached to the name of "America's Band" who made music that heals and cures and makes people happy to have a member with the reputation of lawyering up and filing countless legal actions against fellow bandmates, former co-workers, and family for decades to where it becomes a threat hanging over anyone with a story to tell. Yes it happens a lot but it's a shame it does.

Definitely agreed

Mr. "lol lol woot whatever thumbsup wave kiss tm happydance love rock winke":

Hah! Yeah, man, I’m known for a having great sense of humor - highly refined with a sense of jocularity (not to be confused on your part with jock straps). But I outgrew (as have 99% of adults) what you apparently consider to be “funny” around the time I turned nine or ten years old.

But look, no use irritating the other board members with this tripe, so I’m signing off on this back and forth, and for the benefit of the readership, you might wanna consider doing likewise.

Cheers!

Agreed.

 Hey! We have a new agdster in our midst. And one with a "highly refined" sense of humor to boot! Well, we know how that ended up, don't we. On top of that, we get the added benefit of a highly trained and tight fisted :police: security guard, who, if he was given the green light, would stymie any post he thought would irritate the readership. That's quite the  package. Shucks, and I thought that  attacking other posters was against the rules, but what do I know? Isn't 99.9% of what is posted here opinion with some fact in the mix?

Ok enough...No more swiping at each other. No matter who started it , I’m finishing it. Next person who takes a swipe at someone else posting in this thread will be getting a timeout. No matter who is saying it or whom the recipient is. I mean it when I say it doesn’t matter who it is.

I am interested in whether it's
Threat of Litigation
Or
Reconciliation

If Stephen was reconciled with Stan and Mike, he would certainly have enough influence to 'flip' Rocky.
A pro Mike book could be an Olive branch to Mike from Steve.

My first job was a minor clerical role in a govt department in 1978, and that had a non disclosure agreement. I see no reason why a R&R band just a few years earlier wouldn’t have the same. Sure, the main group members can be excluded (and seem to have been) from telling their stories. The ‘hired hands’ are another matter.

So possibly a positive spin story is deemed to be ok over a tabloid tale?

So where's Reynaldo? Did the Mike stuff chase him off?

Interesting post. Have you read the book OR my posts?

"A rich, vexatious client, can always cause trouble."

Thanks for your post. I am sensitive to this as you might imagine.

It's the way of the world. Same quote, " A rich, vexatious client can always cause trouble."

Ron, thanks for coming on to dialogue. I've been writing my thoughts and opinions in this discussion to the point where it's repeating the same points and questions, however when such a radical if not bizarre shift in both focus and opinion comes from the same man in the span of two years, speaking on the same people and subjects both times related to his book (Wipeout originally, now Endless Wave), something starts to sound..."off". To be polite.

Reading your recent posts as of today, it's almost crystal clear. If we're wrong, please feel free to correct.

The fear of legal action from Mike Love changed the whole thing.

If so, that's pretty damn sad. But in one sense, it might be fortunate that we got to read the "real" Rocky opining a few years ago versus the Rocky whose opinions and statements of fact changed out of fear that he'd get screwed over by Mike through the legal system. Which in itself is ironic since one of the focuses of Rocky's original manuscript for "Wipeout" was how Mike screwed over his brother and cousin among others similarly involved.

All I can add is this visual, which sums up so much of the Beach Boys' more pathetic and sad incidents and happenings through the decades:

(https://i.imgur.com/JvnkNtc.jpg)


PS: I assume the audio tape is still in existence? It would be great to have that come out some day if it's as explosive as Rocky suggested.

#theRockytapes

Oh lordy, I hope there’s tapes.  ;D

If there are, there's probably as good a chance as hearing them as we'd have of ever hearing the Brian/Carl-produced Manson tapes.

The tape that is discussed in the Pamplin book is the audio recording of the Australian punch-out conference with David Frost. According to the book, Stan Love secretly taped that meeting. No mention of whether or not that recording has survived. 
FYI.

That is not the tape we're thinking of and also not the tape Rocky mentioned here which was potentially explosive.

It’s about the 1994 lawsuit....

So, the new narrative of the band's history has Dennis saying "Mike Love IS the Beach Boys! Without him, we're nothing!"
"The thing I wonder about is where does Mike's creative spark come from?"
"Mike's next album makes Pet Sounds look like sh*t!!!"

Maybe it'll be on the 1978 copyright extension release.

Nope, not chased off.

Ron, forgive me if this has already been asked, but did Rocky ever mention Mike’s early 90’s lawsuit against at all?

Ron. You seem to be struggling with the ‘Quote ‘ function on this site so I have saved your answer below. (Press ‘Quote’ then roll to the bottom of the quote first rather than typing your reply straight away.)




In answer to the 180 degree turnaround regarding the tone of the book, which keeps coming up,  I'll try and give a cogent answer.

The original manuscript was very interesting, but problematical. I finally found a publisher that saw the potential that I believed was there for a publishable book. During the publisher's editor polish and rewrite, I had myriad occasions to listen to Rocky recount amazing story after amazing story. Often, during what turned out to be a year of patient and fascinated listening I would remark, "Why isn't that in the book? That's a much more interesting bit of history than other incidents that ARE included and could be considered mean spirited and legally dangerous, at best."
When the edited version arrived I read it and and asked if I may take a writer's pass at it. Rocky was naturally suspicious. "Who was I to take a pass at his book?" It was a fair enough response for sure. I had written screenplays, directed an unheralded low budget feature film, but still. I am experienced in  talent management, music and film biz, but still, it was his book.
He reluctantly agreed to look at a first couple of rewritten chapters. During that year, we'd discovered that his written take on the subject did not actually match up with what I was hearing. Most glaringly, and this has caused lots of suspicion here on this site, was the fact that Rocky actually had an immense respect for Mike Love in many areas. His response to that revelation was, "Really?" There were other areas that were similarly revealed about Stan Love, Steve Love, Dennis, Carl, lawsuits, family squabbles, non-disclosure agreements and more.

There were other areas where what I heard was not alined with what was written.
I was encouraged to continue. About 2/3 of the way through my pass he remarked yet again how pleased he was with what I was doing and how it was considerably different from the tone of the original manuscript. Both Rocky and the publisher felt it was a better and more commercial product and book that was emerging. We are, after all, in the book business. We are not free to express as we may on this site and as Rocky has in the past.
Somewhere along the line, I said to Rocky, "If you praise my writing one more time, I'm going to ask to share writing credit with you." To my "fall off the couch surprise" he agreed. So we finished the book in concert with a more "tolerant, forgiving, insightful" and yeah, dare I say, "commercial" tone in mind.
Clearly we did not pay enough attention to specific details for the learned BB aficionados' on this site, but I can promise you the insights we discovered from our shared review of what we covered are revelatory in their nature. I believe we accomplished a behind the scenes look at things that is quite interesting, remarkable and enjoyable. 

Yes, there is quite a bit more about that lawsuit that I have heard about, but some non disclosure agreements prevent a commercial product with that information on display, so to speak.

I have also seen the docs regarding Stephen Love's exoneration of all embezzlement charges against him. I actually have copies of those docs.
 

Ron, what do you know of the current relationship between Rocky and Stan? Are they on friendly terms? Seems like Stan was a big help with the book. And are Stephen and Stan also on good terms?

There's a lot of water under those bridges. I'm hoping that this book may repair some of those relationships. You question is above my pay grade. Sorry.

Ok... I went back and hacked through the RockRush thread for context.  Having read this work, I'll confirm that there's no smoking gun on the songwrtiting credits front.  Based on the nature of the earlier Rush thread, it would have been silly for me, as a reader, to expect anything of that sort in the book.  In my case, that had no bearing on the decision to read the book.  The book is not a pro-Mike book; it is, among other things, a "let's steer clear of Mike" book. What it is, in the end, is an anti-Dennis Wilson book, and perhaps also an anti-Wilson brothers book.  This is because what comes across in the book – per Rocky’s opinions, perhaps influenced by Reynaldo/Ron – is that as of the late 1970s, the Wilson Bros. were, each in his own way, obstructing the continued success of the Beach Boys and therefore had to be dealt with in different ways. 

This probably accounts for why fans object to the book and to Rocky and all that, but it should be obvious (even before this book came out) that Rocky had the implicit backing of the Beach Boys organization to do whatever it was he was doing. 

And - apologies for getting didactic -  but it's worth keeping in mind that the BB story is about a number of different things. Overall, there's (I) Music (art, creativity, expression); (II) Business (how to make money in the rock 'n' roll business; and (III) Family.  So any potential reader ought to know that the RockRush book has nothing whatsoever to do with music.  By the time Rocky enters the picture in the 1970s, there is no more music in the Beach Boys. It is a business, and a family business at that.  Therefore, you get a viewpoint which portrays certain people as "good guys" and certain people as "bad guys". It is basically the flip-reversal of how story of the Beach Boys in the mid-60s  is commonly told. Dyuring the Pet Sounds/Smile era, the artist is the good guy, the hero, while the money guy is the bad guy.  As of the mid and late 1970s, the organization has turned 180 degrees and the roles are reversed. It is now a 100% commerce organization, and the messed-up, chaotic artsy types are getting in the way of what "Beach Boys" had come to represent.  This in my opinion is why some fans object to Reynaldo and Rocky and that whole mentality - because we fans like the Beach Boys because of their music - the art - and have no interest in their later efforts to stay in business.  So the book is yet another reminder - "this is a business"

I will also say that this book is a bit strange in that it appears to be a case in which the co-writer came in not just to shape the grammar and syntax, etc., but actually to impact the substance of what the primary author wanted to say.  Also, based on the previous RockRush thread, it appears that the draft excerpts Rocky posted remain more or less unchanged in the final version.  That is, in the end, it may be that Rocky did more of the writing than might otherwise be assumed, and that Ron/Reynaldo did more of the interpretation of the material than might otherwise be assumed.


...and as Bob Dylan sang, "a lot of other stuff too..."

Thanks for that interesting post. I had hoped that we had painted Dennis as a sick person, and not a bad person. Clearly Dennis suffered from the disease of addiction and we hoped to have pointed that out in various ways. Dennis may be, in my opinion, the most interesting and cinematic character in the BB constellation and certainly the most trajic. The disease of addiction, as anyone can discover through the Alanon program is a family disease. Carl may have been in the grips as well, but to become aware of Dennis' downward spiral into addiction was both fascinating and horrifying and had far reaching effects on his own brothers and the trajectory of the BB overall. He was enormously talented and Pacific Ocean Blue, his solo album, showed great promise. Carl was in the same vein, and had each of them not poisoned their individual talents and potential at least to some degree due to the horrific disease of addiction, the fans of this music would have had lot's more to enjoy from the Wilson side.
The Love brothers, all significantly still alive, have a remarkably intricate history and it ain't over yet, I'm hoping. From the sidelines where I stand and observe, there's a deep well of love, respect, and sibling rivalry that went a bit off the tracks and I'd be most happy to see those relationships heal. Nothing is impossible while people are still alive. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing especially where families are concerned. We're all capable of it and these three talented and powerful men I believe have it in their power to be connected again.

Thoughtful take.

Hi Smile Board,
Sorry I haven't been around to absorb some of the recent insults hurled at me. I'm a dunce, huh? I don't navigate the site well enough to respond to those insulting individuals one by one. Perhaps someone could instruct me as to how to do that. I'm always willing to "grow" from their learned opinions.
Are we having fun yet? Apparantly, that's how people get their kicks on this site. I had expected more but, that's the way of the world these days. I can understand that Rocky, in the past, got in unpleasant exchanges with some members, but where do they get the right to insult me? They don't know me and it's hurtful in one sense and really sad in another. Got nothing better to do, people? I came on this site to talk about the book, answer questions, etc, because it may be of interest to the site. I've been insulted and accused in ridiculous ways myriad times. Is that what this site is about?
The publisher and I found a manuscript about the BB. There was something really interesting in it. It was too harsh and "tabloidish" and mean spirited in the original form, so we turned it into something else, an insightful and interesting book about a band and the music we loved, same as you all, supposedly.
One of your members, Mtabor, (something like that) actually went out of his way to post a harsh and insulting review on Amazon and hasn't even read the Book. Really guys. Wow, hey tabor, get a life.
To the others on the site, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. I learned a lot from many of you - get some better fact checkers for one thing. Ha. I maintain that Rocky got to see this great band from the inside, behind the curtain, if you will,  during a really interesting time in the bands history. 
Read it, don't read it. The world at large will make its judgement about the book, but keep this in mind. My and the publishers intentions come from a good place. Keep that in mind, please.
HNY 2019 to all of youse!

Yes, I went on Amazon and posted a comment on the book.  I did not claim to have read the entire book.  I stated that I read one chapter and I added that one chapter was more than enough.  I stated my opinion of that one chapter.  I felt that potential buyers of the book should know my opinion, based on the one chapter that you chose to post on this site.  There were three or four other reviews of your book already on the Amazon site, and those reviews were glowing.  Those reviewers have a right to their opinion, as do I. 

Sold. I'll buy your book and read it. But are ther any plans to make a Kindle edition? I live abroad and would prefer a version I could read on my Ebook, but if not I'll order the paperback.

Ron, I really respect that you've come on here consistently to plug/defend this book. And looking over this thread I think you've come out the bigger person on a multitude of occasions when responding to people who have hurled insults at you. I also think it's commendable that you admit:


It takes a lot of work to write a book, and I can't imagine the time and dedication it takes. Especially 28 chapters of dedication. With that said, I hope I can help you understand why there is so much angst towards you in this thread. Here is a quote from the excerpt you posted earlier in the thread:


You are asking people to dedicate their money, and more importantly their time, to reading this book. And excerpts you provide go against much of the truth that many posters here have spent a lot of time fighting for in recent years. There are many in the Beach Boys world that have dedicated a lot of time perpetuating rumors that put Brian in a bad light....whether it is pushback from the amount of Mike Love hatred, I don't know. It doesn't help that Mike Love himself used this same type of misinformation in a lawsuit just over a decade ago for an attempt at a quick buck. So, especially in recent years, many posters here have pushed back against this false idea that Brian is a vegetable, Brian is controlled, Brian effectively quit the band after Smile, Brian did nothing but take drugs and lay in bed after 1967, Carl produced Wild Honey, Mike pulled the band together. The amount of rumors goes on and on, and though I don't at all think people need to berate you, I also think that their anger stems from years of seeing these rumors go unchecked. So when you show up and the chapter you provide has at least one of these rumors, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that people here would get irritated about it.

I also invite you to read Rocky's post history on this forum:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=9448;sa=showPosts (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=9448;sa=showPosts)

Between those posts and what we have seen of the book in its current form regarding Stan, Rocky, Mike, etc, it also leaves a lot of questions relating to why there was an almost 180º turnaround in several opinions about certain people - and yeah, you can say that the publisher, you, and Rocky agreed that the book should be more about the love of the Beach Boys (leaving the tabloid stuff out), yet according to those who have read the book there is still some unflattering perspectives regarding some members (Carl and Dennis) while Mike seems to go unscathed. And in your defense you say that this is due to the time period the book is about. Yet the above quote from the book shows an unflattering and untrue look at Brian Wilson mid-60s and beyond which follows the same tabloid style you claim you were trying to avoid. And I will admit, those rumors were so pervasive that many people believed them without question, so I'm not saying it was intentional on your part. But even unintentional it doesn't make the false perspective correct. You and Rocky may not have even seen this sentence "In 1967...Brian effectively quit the band and withdrew into a cocoon of drugs and disenchantment" as unflattering and untrue, but it is untrue and thus unflattering to Brian. And I think you're asking a lot of people here to buy/support this book when it carries on this myth...again, a myth that Mike Love tried to use as leverage in a lawsuit against Brian not that long ago.

So from many angles (be it Rocky's posts from years back, the 180º turnaround the book takes from some of those posts - and the possible confusion that that makes for us potential readers, the misrepresented look at Brian's late-60s life) this book and anyone defending it was bound (no pun intended) to get some flak.

And while you may not appreciate mtaber's amazon review, he's been one of the few people trying to keep insults being hurled at you in this thread:


I hope most of the above post helps you understand the backlash you have been enduring. Again, respect to you for coming here and dealing with the backlash in the manner you have. Thanks for being open to at least some of the responses that have civilly pointed out some mistakes in the book.

Happy 2019 to you too!

Thanks, RAB.  I appreciate your remarks. 

Excellent post, rab. Many of us pushing back at Ron were doing so precisely because the "tabloid-y" stuff that was apparently in Rocky's original draft was represented by Rocky (and, indirectly, by Steve Love) as providing additional details into the "darker side" of Mike's litigation history. Its absence is not only disappointing, but somewhat suspicious. Clarification from Mike's brothers would go a long way toward explaining the motivation for its apparent removal (which Ron tacitly/indirectly admits in his explanation of how he came to be involved in the book project).

Now it could be that some are frustrated by the type of stonewalling (no pun intended) that the country is currently experiencing with certain folk that Mike seems to be a bit too cozy with, and when they see something else that has the appearance of a whitewash they see red--that could explain the tone of those remarks. But it's also true that the issue raised about the "missing" material has been sidestepped in Ron's responses, in favor of pushing back at those who would probe into those sensitive areas as being unnecessarily mean-spirited.

Brother Ron, you need to take a look at the history of this board and the posts still fully documented and available here to see that what you think is unduly negative and malicious is probably registering at about the fortieth percentile of what this board has been capable of in its "prime."  :3d

I enjoyed and encouraged Rocky upon occasion during his time here, in part because there was the hope that playing to his sense of theatre might cause him to exercise less caution and reveal more about the areas related to Mike that he'd been teasing us with. But I would have to agree with what I think is a sizable majority of posters here that it's inconceivable to me that Rocky wasn't fired and sent home immediately after clocking Carl Wilson. Let's put it this way: I'd buy Rocky a beer ahd have a chat, but I'd keep a seat (or two) between us at the bar...

2rab2591 & co: Why exactly you reply with defense towards the OP? There's CLEARLY zero "recent insults" (keyword "recent") since the OP's last visit here. As you see, the last 20-25 posts here is the OP engaging in dialog with various posters. What the OP even talks about? You know full well there isn't any "recent insult". The OP baited you. Nobody had new questions posed to the OP since his last visit, the thread been quiet, thus to bring attention to it, he went to talk about "recently" being insulted, when actually he brought up ancient past year stuff he replied to *already*, *done & finished*. It's like this - must do sth. to bring thread back in action. How? By playing victim, so you, people, will defend him. It's amazing that, despite knowing there weren't any insults *recently*, you still replied, when instead you could point out precisely that.

I'm pretty certain I had read an insult directed at him from another thread elsewhere days ago...which is what he could have been referring to. Anyways, this is a message board and I just wanted to give my two cents. If it was Ron's intent to bring attention to this thread, then perhaps I did play into his hand, but then by responding to my post publicly (instead of PMing me about the issue) you have played into his hand too by giving this thread even more public attention and clicks down the line. But again, this is a message board and we're free to give our opinions and insights into anything that is posted. You are completely free to critique my posts, and I am completely free to respond to Ron. It's just the way it goes on message boards.

Happy 2019, RangeRover :)

A lot of this post sums up my feelings as well. Anything further I'd just be repeating myself, even though a few key points got lost when another forum folded.

I just want to say, speaking for myself, I hope Ron continues to post here and dialogue with those who want to talk. I'm not a fan of the personal insults, but I like to hear what someone has to say up to or until it crosses any lines. That brings me to my next point:

Ron, when you were writing the book with Rocky, did you read through Rocky's posts and comments made on this board in 2015-16?

I have the feeling that perhaps Ron did not know the minefield he would be walking through when he signed on, and not even with Rocky's previous experiences interacting with people here or the perception of him, but with the Beach Boys universe in general. And, specifically, how an atmosphere exists and was substantially ramped up after Fall 2012 to where certain inconvenient facts and details are either whitewashed, reshaped, or dismissed entirely, and some people who have more details to make these points even more inconvenient are targeted and attacked in the hopes they are discredited or their words dismissed outright, no matter if they're factual or not.

Witness everything that went down when Rocky first appeared, things that happened with Steve Love's comments too, and what has happened with these recent discussions that involve Rocky.

In Ron's defense, I wonder if he had any idea of the tangled web of whitewashing, distorting, and dishonest historians that bubbles under the BB's fan universe.

This. I'm really intrigued by this book, warts and all, and I'd buy it on Kindle in a heartbeat. Living as I do in Australia though, I can't justify to myself the expense imposed by international shipping and our weak dollar.

I would love to know that too. This is why I'm trying to be more sympathetic to Ron here, because this Beach Boys world is a minefield of idiot politics, petty disagreements that have led to some incidents (and I'm not just talking about forum nonsense), and mis/disinformation. Writing a book about any aspect of this band is bound to be impacted by some of this stuff.


Ron, with all this in mind, if you end up selling the e-book for Kindle, will there be some revisions made regarding even a few of the mistakes people have brought up in this thread?

Me too. And I'm curious to hear if Ron chooses to reply just how much of this he was aware of going into this project. When you have people (call them historians, experts, fact-checkers, gadflies, whatever...)  sitting in a self-made ivory tower declaring who or what is "toxic" and determining what information is worthy of consumption by the masses of fans, it's more than a minefield, it's a clusterf*ck. When you have the politics of all this leading to distorting and lying about *message board discussions* about a book, never mind the book itself, you know it's a situation that can best be described as F.U.B.A.R. Or, maybe there is some legit concern and worry about what kind of information still exists that didn't make it to this book.

Waal, truth be told - I was a bit naive when I got involved and did my best to skirt the minefields and intrigue that surrounds this fabulous band. We, meaning the publisher and I, and eventually Rocky, wanted to create a fun and entertaining product. Rocky's original manuscript was that and a whole lot more. What we focused on and what interested me was the interplay between band and management, mixed in with family, sibling rivalry, stardom and backstage personalities. Did I know all the things listed in this very insightful quote above? The simple answer is nope. Many of the details, were, in my mind, not nearly as entertaining as the behind the scenes peek a the interplay between the Loves and the Wilsons, band and management, the exigencies of the music industry, with sex, drugs, and rock and roll thrown in. The aficionados of the Beach Boys will always know more than me. But Rocky was there, behind the curtain and trust me, nobody was in in anybody's pocket during his wild ride inside the BB's world. Were we sensitive to the enormously powerful personalities involved that we were writing about? You betcha. It's one thing to blog. It's quite another to distribute a commercial product like a book on the world stage.
I've said it before, I came away with enormous respect for everyone involved.

You did not read the book. Your review on the site where the book is for sale is a cheap and petty shot at something you have no knowledge of. Why you would go out of your way to bash the book and RATE THE BOOK without reading?  You owe me and everyone that absorbs your ignorant "star" rating of the book an apology.
YOU RATED THE WHOLE BOOK WITHOUT READING IT. IT AFFECTED THE RATING OF THE BOOK. Even if only momentarily it is a disgusting petty act on your part.
YOU HAVEN'T READ IT AND YET YOU RATED THE WHOLE BOOK. GAVE IT A 1 STAR RATING. TAKE IT DOWN.

IT'S A LIE.

I respectfully agree with you except for tabor. I posted a reply to him. I don't need his protection on this site. I am repulsed at his behavior on the Amazon. He rated the book. HE HAS NOT READ THE BOOK. It hurt and he had no right to put that on Amazon. It was petty. Period.
Have you read the book? I'm not quite sure if you have or are simply reacting to others who have so I don't quite know how to address your other comments correctly.
Please let me know. Thanks.

I did a lot of work explain exactly why Rocky was not fired after belting Carl. It's in the book. It's the most insightful and revealing information in there in my opinion. It affected Steve Love's relationship with the band from that resounding crack on Carl's jaw to the end of Steve's career with the Band.

Rocky and Stan were dedicated to keeping drugs away from Brian. They were not guys to be trifled with. Steve Love was loyal to a fault to those guys and that dedication
READ THE BOOK. What happened after that incident and why is fascinating.

Regarding reviews, while professional reviews publishers by reviewers/journalists should absolutely be held to a certain standard, I don't think customer reviews on websites like Amazon should have such requirements (and whether they do or not, people reading them should and hopefully usually do understand the reliability of such reviews; e.g. you can only give so much weight to random customer reviews).

But a review of a book that is basically the equivalent of a movie review that states "I watched it for 25 minutes and couldn't take it anymore and walked out", while weighed accordingly (I certainly don't make my buying decisions based on Amazon reviews, or even Yelp reviews particularly, or YouTube comments, etc.), shouldn't be disallowed on these sites. The Pamplin review in question even, arguably, admits only one chapter was read. How would we ever know who has seen or heard any product, or actually even owned the product in question? That's why Amazon has "Verified Purchase" designations, to at least prove a user owns or owned the product in question (and even then we don't know they watched/listened/tried it).

All attacking a review is going to accomplish is to make sure the next bad review goes out of its way to claim (whether true or not) that the reviewer has read the entire book.

To be clear, *I'm* not into reviewing stuff I can't appropriately judge. But I've seen even professional reviews where the reviewer admits they coudln't take anymore and gave up. As long as they disclose that, I'm fine with it and weight it as such (meaning usually not too much).

I'm guessing a fair amount of movie reviewers may not have reached the end of viewing "The Human Centipede."

Ron, I certainly am not about to apologize for my review on Amazon.  There is nothing deceitful or dishonest about what I wrote.  I did not claim to have read the entire book.  I did not claim to have purchased the book.  I said "one chapter" was all it took, and that's the truth.  How you see this as a LIE is beyond me.  I'm guessing that, if I had posted a review stating "I've only read one chapter, but this is a great book from what I've read thus far and I hope everyone buys it!", you'd have no complaints.  Perhaps you should have posted a better (at least somewhat accurate) chapter on this site.

I did just go on Amazon and edited my review to make it more clear that I have only read one chapter. 

See? At this point, why even care if you don't get equally polite replies as yours? *facepalm*

I have not read the book. Tbh I’m hesitant dropping $21 plus shipping on a book that I have seen a couple inaccuracies in by reading only the introduction and the chapter you uploaded. I can look past some inaccuracies (there are some in probably every Beach Boys book published), but I can’t justify spending $25+ on it.

Perhaps you could respond to the questions made regarding a possible e-book release of this book? I think an e-book release would make this book a bit more affordable to potential readers

Well said rab, mtaber, and RR! :bw

It's bad craic reviewing a book 1 star when you haven't even read the thing... regardless if you read 1 chapter or not

You don't get it. Your review and negative response and star rating affects the WHOLE BOOK'S rating even though you have not read it. You rated the entire book with your ignorant response. You didn't rate 1 chapter ONLY. It doesn't work that way. You damaged the whole book and you've never bought it, seen it or read it.
You have no business saying anything on there. Take it down or you will remain a punk in my eyes and taint the reputation of this site.
If I had known someone like you was on here I'd have never asked the publisher for permission to post a chapter on here. It was a curtesy. You hurt my reputation with the publisher. And I'm being polite here.

Please note "ignorant" is curable. Stupid is forever.

This is posted twice:

You don't get it. Your review and negative response and star rating affects the WHOLE BOOK'S rating even though you have not read it. You rated the entire book with your ignorant response. You didn't rate 1 chapter ONLY. It doesn't work that way. You damaged the whole book and you've never bought it, seen it or read it.
You have no business saying anything on there. Take it down or you will remain a punk in my eyes and taint the reputation of this site.
If I had known someone like you was on here I'd have never asked the publisher for permission to post a chapter on here. It was a curtesy. You hurt my reputation with the publisher. And I'm being polite here.

Please note "ignorant" is curable. Stupid is forever.

Publisher's are loath to change things in a book. It's a difficult and expensive process. We have already changed a couple of things on the back cover but I know that's not what you are talking about. Those tweaks will show up down the line.

The answer is that if we get some sales, and we're just getting some publicity started, we, the author's will try and implement some corrections. Once again, it's the larger picture of the time period that reflects the age old rift between talent and management and family and sibling interaction that is the freshest thing about this tale. The details of dates etc do not mar the overview that I think is the most interesting thing about this book.
So yeah, kindle down the line.

Ron, if you were as brave regarding revealing what Rocky knows about Mike Love  as you are in attacking me, perhaps the one chapter would be a better read. 

Thanks for the reply about that Ron. I will definitely get the Kindle version down the line, and if I have some extra cash in the coming months I will get this book in its current printing. Its a perspective of the band/Brian from an era that I'm really uneducated about, I'm looking forward to giving it a go.

You wanna tangle with Mike Love, my man, be my guest. That's "the" Mike Love your blustering about - all 50 years of well earned wealth and stardom you are talking about. Go ahead brave boy. Have a go.

Furthermore, I'm not JUST attacking you out of the wild blue yonder. I'm responding to your hurtful PUBLIC attack on a product you haven't read and the damage you did to my relationship with my publisher. We're not just playing around on a blog. We invested time, effort, money, and good intentions in this book, maybe we failed in some respects, but we paid a curtesy to the site to post a chapter privately here, for free. Then you went public with a vicious condemnation of our work which harmed us for no good reason.
 You haven't read it. You starred the entire book unfairly, maliciously not just one chapter. It stinks.
 I'm asking you to play fair. We were friendly, courteous, and giving of our time out of respect for this site. You went off site, in public, and instigated harm.
You don't deserve an apology.

That being said, if I went too far,  you have my apologies.

Mike Love is, undoubtedly, not one to tangle with in any regard that could become litigious.  That shouldn't mean that he has to be given drastically more credit for his contributions to the band than he deserves. 

Ron, I've decided that I'm going to try to read the entire book, if I can find it in a nearby library.

The unfortunate takeaway I have from this is that Mike Love wants people to be afraid of him. There are plenty of parallels to a certain person in today's world of politics too, and I think that some powerful people (who like to make less powerful people fear them) admire that trait in other powerful people too.  

Maybe this is just par for the course with some powerful celebs, but it really feels like a particularly strong case of people being (justifiably) afraid of him due to past litigiousness. I have to think that things like the ridiculous and laughed-out-of-court 2005 lawsuit were really an example of creating an atmosphere of fear to prevent people from publishing books like Rocky's apparent original draft. Guess it worked. It's unfortunate that Brian of all people had to go through grief in 2005 to help Mike add to his portfolio of scare tactics.
 
Sucks for an author to be caught up in this drama. Not Ron's fault. I'm still curious to read the book, Ron, and I will at some point. I wonder if the original draft could have just been released if all the names were changed.

Rocky and Ron's book is hinting at a far deeper problem...

Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

Do you mean what goes on in the diseased head of Mike Love?  :lol :lol :lol

If someone had the facts on their side, and did indeed go up against Mike Love with all his "well earned wealth and stardom" behind him, the court of public opinion would side with whoever that person might be, and if there were a backing for that person and the story, the facts would win out over litigious nonsense. As long as their story is factual and true, despite Mike's and his more ardent supporters' and water-carriers' attempts to rehab his image, that image is still what it is and has been for a long time. Actions have consequences.

With that said, Steve Love called it just over 3 years ago when he said this:

>>>>"Thank you for your kind thoughts and generous offer of help. Any form of self-publishing for Rocky will not work for the very reason that he needs a publisher with a strong legal arm who won’t be cowed by ML’s reputation for litigiousness. Mike is revealed to be not such a great guy in “WIPEOUT.”

I have read Rocky’s book and it is indeed fascinating. He is patiently biding his time until some book publisher wakes up and realizes that his entertaining memoir has the potential to be a hot property. Aloha."
Steve<<<<


It's a shame the publisher Steve had in mind hasn't been found.

Interesting thoughts Century.

EDIT: Deleted stupid rest of post.

I think its almost universally a bad idea to bring politics into any of these threads.  Things get divisive enough when we stick to the Beach Boys...

I just read the book...A few thoughts:
1) The book is to a fault positive about Mike Love. I couldnt figure out why then I just read the last few posts about them being scared of legal action and makes 100% sense. I dont think theres 1 negative word about him in the whole book.
2) The book is uniformly negative about dennis. He comes off almost as a cartoon villain. As far as I can recall, the only positive thing about him is at the end in the sort-of prologue where he mentions "oh yeah he had a solo ablum that was really good".
3) Carl also comes off very poorly.
4) Most of the stuff in the book is based on personal experiences/conversations there is no way to fact check so its hard to know how accurate a lot of them are. But what doesn't give me confidence about it's accuracy is there are several pictures that say something like "Brian in the 60s" and its obvious its Brian in the 80's. I was surprised how many photo captions are obviously just incorrect about dates.

That said, it was entertaining and a worthwhile read if you take it with a huge grain of salt.

The following remark is A JOKE, folks (and Ron, this is NOT meant to single out this tome...but in context, the following is irresistible)...

I would really LOVE to see a blurb on the back of a book that read just as it's phrased in the above quote...  ;)

What about 'Surfgate' could these issues be addressed in a work of fiction without fear of reprisal?

Surfgate,” five years in the making, is a fictionalized account of a copyright ownership dispute that occurred between two high profile rock stars that led to a music publishing lawsuit.

Thanks for your comment about the book and thanks for taking a look. I'm a bit dismayed that Carl and Dennis came off as "villains." Dennis was in the grips of the horrible disease of addiction and we apparantly did not do enough to delineate the distinction between Man and disease. I regret that in both Dennis and Carl's cases. I came away with enormous respect for both of them but clearly we did not get that across in the book.
Thanks for your "ENTERTAINING AND WORTHWHILE READ" comment. That made my day. That was the overriding mantra for the book. That kind of attitude can be disappointing to such erudite fans as are represented here on Smile. I have come to understand that and often quite painfully. Still, we are in the book business and the object is to have a product that will not be trounced and stopped in the legal arena. I repeat for the umpteenth time the quote from my attorney friend, "A rich, vexatious  litigant can always cause trouble." Ha. Sad but true. If we ENTERTAINED and were WORTHWHILE, we did the major part of our task. 
Check it out those of you who haven't. I'm confident we hit some spots about the amazing story of the "rescue and revitalizing" of Brian and the fascinating interplay of both the 3 Love brothers and the 3 Wilson brothers and the sibling and management/talent interplay in a way that has never been touched on in any other BB work. Once again thanks for checking it out.

That publisher described as "hasn't been found" may be better described as one that "doesn't exist."
Believe me, I searched. There is a litigious history surrounding the BB that comes up the minute any legal department does a search and there is no way that the original manuscript could have found a home. It is much easier to stop a project in this world than it is to start one. The instant a product is for sale, the rules change and sadly "he who has the gold, makes the rules,"  something like that. I'm not sure where I heard that but it rings true to me.
We can enjoy a much more open forum on a site like this.
Could someone write a work of fiction, etc? Perhaps, but if a layman could identify the players depicted, the authors could be in an expensive situation legally. Yes  the truth could win out in the end but it would cost money, a lot of money, in the ensuing legal struggle.
By the way, "The Beach Boys' Endless Wave" got an all star review in the Jan 2019 edition of RECORD COLLECTOR, one of the oldest and most prestigious music magazines in Great Britain. Would I be allowed to post that on Smile?

Hi Again,
I have some photo's from the book and the Record Collector review I'd like to post to Smile. Am I allowed?
Ron

Hello Ron, yes you can post those here, no problem.

Thanks, I gave this a try with the copy and paste method and failed. Do I need to implement the addition options function and then upload the files.
A computer wiz I aint.
Uh huh. And you and the other player from this site can hurt us again. Post another 1 star vicious review on Amazon to get back at Rocky because Rocky was perhaps rude and insulting to you on this site? I worked hard on that book because the Beach Boys meant a lot to me and their music touched my soul growing up. The Book is about them and I did my best to honor them and their career and work, and in good faith, mind you. Then I came on this site to be generous with my time and a couple of you went out of your way to hurt the book. Whoever it was who bragged about never writing a review before but went out of his way to do so on Amazon because this book was so bad a waste of money was the byline. It's far from bad. In fact the world is judging it as pretty darn good. Call me anything on this site you want. I'm here. But to go on Amazon with that vicious and petty review stank. And pretend to be a BB fan. Doubt it and thanks for nothing. It's easy to be a critic from behind your computer screen. I'd like to meet up, discuss it in person. How bout that? Ha Ha - just joking. Channeling a little bit of the Roc there. Just a little bit.

 

Ron, you posted a chapter on this site - I read it, I thought it was highly inaccurate, and I said so on Amazon.  For the 3rd time, I'll explain to you that I did not claim to have read the entire book.  Anyone who can read would be able to figure that out.  I later posted on here that I am going to try to find a copy of the book at a nearby library, so I can read the whole book.  You then interpret that to mean that my goal is to find a way to write an even MORE negative review on Amazon.  You say I'm not a Beach Boy fan because I did a negative comment on Amazon.  The logic you use amazes me. 


Meanwhile, you repeatedly admit on this site that the accuracy of the book has been sacrificed so as not to antagonize a certain cousin of the Wilson brothers. 

So, the only thing a true Beach Boy fan can do is buy the book, read the book, accept it's inaccuracies, love the book, and post a 5-star review on Amazon.  Am I on the right path now?

I would be interested in reading the Record Collector review if you can post.

AGD has reviewed the book on the other site, and basically came to the conclusion that there are many, many factual errors. I guess that is a risk when writing about a band who's history has been thoroughly scrutinized!!

I said it was a cheap, petty shot to post a review OF THE WHOLE BOOK on Amazon when you had only read the one chapter that our publisher agreed to post on the Smile site out of curtesy and respect for this site. You hurt my relationship with the publisher and you damaged the rating of the whole book when you had only read what we posted for your pleasure. Amazon does not distinguish your pettiness and inaccurate review of the whole book. It affected the whole rating for a considerable amount of time. It hurt us. Did that make you feel good?

As to accuracy, I have admitted that we did not come up to the standards of the aficionados on this Site.
As to the "cousin of the Wilson's," we didn't sacrifice anything or avoid antagonizing Mike Love. Whether you like it or not Mike Love is the most instrumental reason that the BB survived all these years. If you love the band then the fact that they are still around is because of HIM. You may not like him for whatever reason, but he is the glue that kept that show on the road, day in and day out, year after year,  period. Have some respect. He earned it. Because we did not choose to investigate certain areas was the publishers choice for the kind of book he would be willing to publish.
That's sho biz. Try getting a book published about rich, powerful and successful people and run into the exigencies of that world before you squawk.

As for your sarcastic "right path" comment. Read it or don't read it. I hope you don't quite honestly. I did not and would not have done all the righteous work I put in to this book for the likes of you. Your opinion doesn't matter to me at all any more. I find you vindictive and untrustworthy in any case.
As for the cheap shot artist from this site that claimed our work and therefore the publisher's, and Rocky's, and my work is a waste of money,  I'd like to have him present that view to us in person. The book is well written, interesting, insightful and enjoyable, everything a book should be. His petty shot at Rocky, which is all his vindictive review is about, is childish revenge for the way Rocky treated him on this site. YOU WOUILD HAVE KEPT THAT ON THE SITE IF YOU HAD AN OUNCE OF CLASS.

READ IT, THEN TAKE ANY HONEST ACCURATE SHOT YOU WANT. AT LEAST YOU WILL HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT!
Since I'm still steamed at the both of youse I'll say to you what my Mom used to say to me when I was behaving like a nasty little runt, "I hope someone treats you the way you are treated me so you'll know how it feels."

Whew, I feel better already.

As for the rest of the site, HNY everyone.

Yup, embarrassingly we apparantly did fall short on accuracy in some ways. I can only apologize. I was more interested in the overall view of things based on my hard earned knowledge in the music, film and entertainment business.
I'd be pleased to post the Record Collector review if I could figure out how to do that.
There is another review coming, only our second in a legitimate news or magazine forum that should be out next week and I'll be happy to post that as well, my internet skills and site acumen notwithstanding.

I'll figure it out. Thanks for your interest.

Um. I think I'd credit Brian's MUSIC as the reason that The Beach Boys still matter. I think having a "Beach Boys" on the road isn't necessarily a good thing. I bet they woulda been playing much bigger venues in 2012 if Mike hadn't been out there "keeping the band around" since 1998.

"If you love the band then the fact that they are still around is because of HIM."

Ron, I've tried to respectfully engage in discussions about your book and avoid the pitfalls of name-calling and whatnot, and encourage a dialogue. However, a comment like this comes off sounding ridiculous. If you're stating it as fact, then it's all but "game on" and I'll openly say this is a load of crap and couldn't be further from the truth. If it's opinion, I'll challenge it and my view leans more toward what Jim V just posted above: The magic of this band is, has been, and will always be those glorious records Brian made over 50 years ago that continue to touch and inspire generations of fans. The fact Mike Love is "still tourin'" having paid for the license and rights to bill his band as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if not for those records Brian was creating back in the 60's which people enjoy. Those records from the 60's are the true Rosetta Stone of this band's history...everything else is icing on the cake. If someone can prove me wrong, please go ahead and engage.

But to make such a statement, Ron, doesn't do you or the book any good because it comes off as ass-kissing to Mike Love, and beyond that it's undeserved. That's my opinion. The fact is as clear as actually digging into the history of the band and seeing why the Beach Boys are legends - And it's not Mike's touring band responsible for that, nor was it Mike's actions over the past 40 years.

On a similar note, in light of the comments above, I'd like to ask Ron - if he chooses - to offer his opinions on a few of Rocky's comments from previous years:













That's just a sampling. Again, we've discussed it before, but generally the same source who spoke that way roughly 3 years ago in public is not going to suddenly decide Mike Love is the exalted Savior of The Beach Boys unless something really drastic happened in the interim...Call it a "Come To Mike" or "Come To Maharishi" moment?  :lol

Anyway, it's f*cked up.

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Thanks, GF--bringing Rocky's prior less-than-salutary remarks about Mike back into easy access makes the point that several of us were referencing more indirectly during the course of this thread. That's why it's so important to leave everything up and available here--that way the public record of what was said remains continuously accessible to forestall any instances of "faulty memory."

I'm glad Mike kept touring, as I think the net effect of that effort was positive, but to suggest that it was the primary reason anyone remembered the band is silly at best. Just as it's silly--dangerously misguided, in fact--to think that Mike's creative contribution to the band is within several standard deviations of Brian's (though Mike has managed to convince himself of that, and has spent years slagging his cousins in a shameless attempt to elevate his position by besmirching their reputations).

It's pretty revealing to see how Rocky and his book, which for all of its faults/foibles had an opportunity to dig into some areas that would have produced some "inconvenient narratives," was mysteriously "de-fanged." Either Rocky was talking out of his hat, or a number of things have been swept under the rug.

Much more eloquent but the sentiment is all Rocky.  ;)

Good luck anyway Ron, but probably not the market here TBH.

So, uh, well I've got an idea. I'm not sure if our beloved mods will go for it, but here goes...

I know he's currently persona non grata on this board, but wouldn't it be interesting to invite ol' Rushton Pamplin back here. I have an odd feeling that if we told him that we and the public felt that Ronnie Reynaldo screwed up what coulda been an awesome "tell all" that he wouldn't be very happy about this and might be willing to explain how he got "bullied" himself into putting out this book that in no way represents him.

CONTROVERSIAL POST WARNING:

I will give Mike significantly more credit than most on this board for his *creative contribution* to the early '60s hits ... even go out on a limb and say his contributions to some of these hits were near-equal to Brian's from a *commercial* standpoint. I don't think Bruce was wrong in that doc when he said Mike "translated" Brian's tunes into something for the masses.

BUT -- Mike taking "The Beach Boys" on the road year after year, without the actual Beach Boys, does nothing to keep the "group" alive. I can't imagine it being anything but *bad* for their reputation, as noted above. I understand all involved parties benefit financially as a result ... and I'm fairly certain that is the main factor in why the enterprise continues.

+1

Nothing controversial IMO.

-100 on the first paragraph. If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits. It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson. But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.

Hence the controversy -- that we can not play politics for once on this board, and give credit where credit is due ... while also calling out the parts that are shitty.

I'm not "falling victim" to anything except my own ears and understanding of the group, their music, and their history. Brian wrote plenty of hits without Mike ... and clearly, some may argue that Brian's artistry would have been better off without him. BUT let's not minimize the commercial value of a round-round-get-around-bom-bom-dip-di-dip ... those are the HOOKS ... let's not overstate the commercial value of the weirder aspects of the best creations from Brian. My opinion is Brian knew quite well his strengths and limitations, which is why he worked with Mike in the way he did. And the commercial success of the early records gave Brian an outlet for Pet Sounds to happen.

Additionally -- with all due respect, this is where you're a toxic poster man, and quite frankly why this place is the pits to visit these days. "If you believe this, you're brainwashed ..." HA gimme a break

You're baiting people into arguing by making it personal *RIGHT OFF THE BAT*

Donny, all personal squabbles and shots taken at this board aside, do you not agree that Mike Love has a history of trying to take more credit for the band's success and legacy than is due in reality, and doing so in large part by bringing up the problems with the Wilson brothers? It feels like he has too often tried to elevate himself by denigrating the Wilsons, and back to the topic of Ron's book with Rocky, that same emphasis on the negative regarding the Wilsons while overreaching on the credit  given Mike seems to be the main issue people seem to have as a negative opinion on the book.

I concur that regardless of what one may think of Mike's actions, especially over the last several decades, those early contributions of his were ace.  There's absolutely nothing "wrong" with Warmth of the Sun or Please Let Me Wonder, for example.

Even if somebody believes that Brian could've come up with songs of that caliber without Mike, and he very possibly could have, those 2 songs for starters probably wouldn't exist in their exact incarnations that they do today, so there's no denying that Mike made many positive contributions to the band, and these are just two of them. 

There's also *plenty* to talk about on the other side of that equation too (anybody who tries to pretend that's not the case is delusional), but the man does deserve his due for the good stuff.  The small handful of people who refuse to say objectively true negative things about him are probably coming from an overcompensating place to counteract the people who won't say anything good about the *actually* objectively good things Mike did. The man may act poorly, and he may overreach for credits, but his talent on songs like those, and those unfortunate traits are not mutually exclusive.

CD - I think the instances of people trying to strip Mike of the credit he deserves are and have been overstated by those same groups who are overcompensating on the whole deal, as you just put it so well. But it hasn't helped that Mike himself has said so much of what he said and overreached for credit or even accolades beyond the norm.

I'm the first to say songs like California Girls, Warmth Of The Sun, and Kiss Me Baby among others are brilliant songs from the Wilson/Love collaboration.

But I'm also curious what you think Mike contributed to Please Let Me Wonder since you mention that specifically.

*shots at the board = posters like OSD create an unsavory environment, in which folks are not able to state a simple opinion without him "reframing" it to suggest some kind of brainwashing by Mike Love. I would ask you if you think that kind of post contributes to be type of board you want to see.

And I agree 100% with what you wrote above. But doesn't mean there's not some truth in Mike's position ... he clearly has a chip on his shoulder about it all.

And it's true ... if I'm being honest, the board has always been troubled, but the types of conversations that used to be so interesting are now filled with some kind of undercurrent of politics.

It's a good question about PLMW… It's possible that the extent of his contributions are what's heard on the early version with Mike on lead vocals, singing lyrics which were eventually changed to the final lyric set.  I find it very, very odd that that version has not been officially released… Baffling really.  To me that song is the beginning of Pet Sounds.  In fact I think I like the song better than any song on Pet Sounds, to be honest.  For that reason alone I am incredibly curious to know what Mike actually contributed to the song, and why the early version has never been officially released (the SOT boot could work as a source if tapes are missing, right?)

In any case, it's absolutely true that any book that is so drastically different from those original posts by Rocky cannot be taken seriously. There's no way anybody can minimize or explain away the dramatic 180 spin and maintain credibility.  Because it wasn't just that negative Mike things were simply cut out, but the additional action of apparently making the book a giant praise Mike fest is just beyond laughable when one compares it to the original Rocky posts on this board.  It's like going from uncensored 1987 gory arms-being-blown-off mutilation chic Robocop to Saturday morning G-rated cartoon Robocop for the kiddies.

I can empathize with anybody involved with a project encountering red lights and being forced to do things because of the threat of legal action. It's essentially like watching Wonder Years episodes with music replacement. No way around it. But something like this  getting heaps of criticism is to be expected, and I can't believe that anybody associated with the book wouldn't completely, 100% understand why the criticism is justified for that very reason.

I get that the author wants to defend the book so that the project can still have a degree of success, but it's essentially like saying "well great care was taken in choosing the songs that we replaced the unobtainable music with, we got the very best soundalikes available!")

That said, I haven't read the book, and maybe there are still some decent parts to it, despite the fact that large swaths of it are apparently to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'll say honestly there are a lot of posts that I think could or should have been worded differently or opinions expressed differently, my own included. But it's not enough of a grounds to charge the entire community with being this or that based on those things you or I may not agree with. It's one of the things that comes with having an open forum, and the option is there to ignore anything anyone wants to ignore, or challenge as you did and have a dialogue about it.


I think the chips on Mike's shoulders are more about issues Mike himself needs to deal with personally than they are about the reality of how many times he got screwed by his cousins the Wilsons,  and Al Jardine, and his brother Stephen, and whoever else he points a finger at on any number of issues on any given day. I do feel, as an opinion, that Mike likes to portray himself as a victim and give himself the accolades he wished he got from the public and the fanbase overall. And in doing so he too often overcompensates and reaches too far beyond reality. Ego. And he also wishes he got the accolades Brian gets (and deserves) especially for the truly classic 60's Capitol years. But the reality doesnt always support what Mike wishes it did.

Which types of conversations are you referring to?

It's also important to remember how many boards there were, say, 15 years ago and how all of them had various troubles. And note that out of all of them, this one is still active and survived all of that, and whatever reasons caused the others to either fail or wither away. The politics you may be speaking of were always there on ALL of these BB related forums, but starting in fall 2012 it started getting a lot more intense and defined. It's pretty easy to see why given that timeline.

Agreed about the issues with the book. What you said about music replacement reminded me exactly of WKRP in Cincinnati, and how I remember Al kooper saying what a travesty it was to watch the episodes in syndication with the original music replaced.

PLMW is an interesting case, because not only is there the early version that you mentioned, But be sure to check out the later cover tribute version where Mike and Bruce wrote new lyrics to replace Brian's original instrumental Bridge. And if you hear the lyrics, they sound like they are coming from a totally different voice than that which wrote the original. Which would be odd if Mike did have as much of a hand in writing the original as he was awarded credit.

So it is just one of the more prominent cases of asking, well what if someone were to suggest that Brian wrote most or all of those lyrics and Mike did less than he was credited for. A pure hypothetical exercise to consider. And if you hear Brian in those words as well as the music which he obviously did, versus the voices of those who went back decades later and wrote a new section for the song that sounds like it's from Mars versus the original. In my opinion.

I could easily believe that Brian had almost everything to do with the lyrics on the final PLMW version, just as easily as I could believe that Mike contributed a good portion of it. There's nothing about the lyrics that scream "Mike absolutely clearly wrote this" to my ears, but he has also proven himself capable of writing plenty of great lyrics, so who knows.   The lyrics are also very heartfelt and feel very Brian-like to me also.

Two things are certain… Mike can write great lyrics when he wants to, and he also has a history of overreaching for credits, probably in part due to the fact that he was legitimately screwed over for years and it messed with his head. And he was/is seemingly also quite greedy. Chicken or egg argument. Lots of inconvenient and contradictory things seem to have some truth in the equation, making for a very murky way for ascertaining what the real truth is here.

One thing that I will say is that I think Brian was very capable at writing solid lyrics. Just look at ITBOMM from the same era.  Makes me wonder if Brian lacked self-confidence on the lyrics front due to not getting much praise or positive feedback in that area, especially from those who stood to benefit from helping Brian feel the need to reach out for help.  That said, I'm sure he was overwhelmed and it was probably a load off his back to delegate lyric writing to others. Again, the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle here.

To be fair, prior to say 1966 (the period Donny refers to) I would say no.

For many decades since? Obviously.

Sadly, Donny has yet to learn that message boards are dominated by opinions. No, I'm not looking for an argument or trying to make it personal even though you seem bruised by what I posted which was merely a disagreement with part of your post. If you were totally offended or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you or the board in any way, then I will apologize, however I stand by my comments concerning the Lovester which is in no way, shape or form toxic. I don't like the man and I have no regrets about posting that fact.

What Rocky hinted about the 1994 songwriting lawsuit  could be far worse than anything Murry Wilson ever did if true....

Just for fun, let's break down your "mere disagreement".  

1- -100 on the first paragraph.
Meaning: you turn a "+1" reference in a prior post into "-100".  So, not just "in my opinion you're wrong", but finding a way to immediately put him on his heels.
2- If that is what you believe then you are falling victim to what Mike has been trying in vain to do
Meaning: you are small-minded enough that you are unable to avoid being mentally manipulated by Mike Love's scheming.
3- by rewriting history and convincing people that Brian relied on him to write the hits.
Aside: Even the 2nd most virulent ML hater on this board wouldn't agree with you, that this what the Lovester was ever trying to accomplish.  That's really saying something.
4- It's hard to believe that anyone could ever fall for
Meaning: Only stupid people could fall for this.  ...Oh look, last sentence, I stated that you fell for this.  But hey, I'm just stating an opinion, and not calling you stupid!!   :hat :hat :hat :hat :hat
5- Love's ultimate goal in that he's as talented as Brian Wilson.
Aside: Again, this is so wildly absurd.  But you're not joking?
6- But I do concur with your second paragraph wholeheartedly.
Meaning: Only friendly when you agree with him.

Overall: You weren't outwardly "making it personal" or an argument, but your post was steeped in bullying, as also shown in your reply when you passively say things like "you seem bruised" (Meaning: You are weak) and "or thought I would bother to take the time to insult you" (Meaning: You are worthless).  What you absolutely were doing, is stating the same broken record, obvious opinion that you have tens of thousands of times on various internet sites, semantically phrased like a total jerk and/or liar and/or actual crazy person.  With the background premise that you then retreat behind the internet's general inability to convey the semantics that you often show on here to many people, and hide behind "this is a place for opinions" and the cloud covering that it offers.  The problem is, it's not a place for everything else that you accidentally allow to slip out on a semi-regular basis, yet nobody here has ever really made efforts to stop you.  When people complain, that's what they are really complaining about.  :police: :police: :police: :police: :police:

OSD - not trying to start an argument either, and I also share many, many, many of your gripes about Mike Love, no doubt about it... but I'm trying to be realistic here. You have to admit that songs like Warmth of the Sun, Kiss Me Baby, All I Wanna Do, and Please Let Me Wonder, and much/all of the Wild Honey album are just about perfect, wouldn't you agree?

Or are there any parts of any of those songs that you feel are lacking in terms of lyrics? (Side note, if we're talking about preference of who sang what song, I would say that All I Wanna Do probably would rule even more if Carl or Brian sang it, although Mike's lead is solid).

I suppose one could make the argument that those songs turned out perfectly in spite of Mike Love's lyrics... but ultimately, absent Mike, those songs wouldn't exist in their current form. There's no way they would; it's the butterfly effect. Maybe Brian would have written similar songs, but some of those lyrics (and melodies?) would not exist, so I can't see how someone can say/imply that Mike's contributions were all garbage if that person actually enjoys those songs.

Again, we can talk (and probably find common ground) until the cows come home about the actual crappy stuff that Mike did over the years to the band, and his bandmates, which is mountainous. And I can also see how one could make the argument that Brian and the band could have done all sorts of wonderful, gorgeous, successful material minus Mike. I won't argue that is an alternate timeline that is not beyond the realm of reality. But if you like those songs, IMHO you have to be able to say that Mike undoubtedly - regardless of how much overreaching he did with credits - had to have had *some* good contributions to the band. I cannot see how logically you, or anyone, with a knowledge of the band and its history, could say otherwise.

I say this to you respectfully, and again - I definitely *do* understand how being super annoyed at tons upon tons of his actions can make it hard to want to give him praise... but once again, Mike acting like a yutz and his genuinely good contributions are not mutually exclusive. The only way I could truly understand your point of view, is if you genuinely think that every single one of Mike's lyrical contributions to the band were on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice (in other words, just a couple of supplemental words that are not really the actual lyrics to the songs). If you really think that ALL of Mike's objectively good lyrics (there are certainly bad lyrics he's written) were puffed-up credit fakery on the level of Wouldn't It Be Nice, then I could understand (although not agree with) your point of view. Do you think that's the case? I could certainly believe that some (maybe even more than a few) instances of his credits were puffed-up nonsense, but no way that all/most were. I just can't believe that.

There seems to be a pattern of Mike taking Brian’s money through lawsuits and song writing credits as a business plan. 10 million in 1994 was a bailout to Mike’s spendthrift ways...

Mike likes to bite the hand that feeds him. :bw

I had a very negative view of Mike Love and his lawsuit and all that, but his book lays out quite clearly his side of things.  There is no question, that Brian Wilson, through his father and attorneys, gave Mike the shaft and his case had merit.

Yeah, poor, pitiful Mike. Such a shame he was Brian's cousin. I mean he coulda worked in a sheet metal factory and had a pension and all that. But no, Brian made him be in the band and ruined his life. So sad indeed.  :'( :'(

This thread has turned into "Mike Love: Hero or Villain".  Which is probably a more interesting topic than the book..

:woot :woot

Like I said before, it's all opinion. If this is your opinion, fine, no problem whatsoever! 'Preciate your free range analysis! Seeing how you read what I post, could you please provide this service on all my future posts? Thanks, man!

The dude abides! :bw

Let's stay on topic, folks. Mike's actions are well-known and like other divide-and-conquer strategies are designed to create factions. Mike's "base" is pretty solid, and most of it is elsewhere, just as the band has been split into two factions.

What's at stake here is whether Rocky-Stan-Steve had some "goodies" on Mike that would undermine his position as long-suffering victim and clean-living icon of the "California Feeling." That was what Rocky intimated...albeit in a manic phase that may indicate that he was overplaying his hand/talking out of his hat.

The chances of us being able to track that down are probably about as good as that of a water buffalo going down a rabbit hole (which all of this innuendo might turn out to be...) BUT we can always hold out hope that someone will let something slip.

Failing that, I think we are pretty much done with this topic. I suspect that Rocky has been squelched. The best approach is for someone to determine if the Love brothers have in fact reconciled--if that's confirmed, we probably have 98% of our answer as to what happened.

OSD, do you have any thoughts on my earlier post, above?

I will say this: I completely understand it may not easy or desired to say good stuff about a guy who has acted so unconscionably crappy on so, so many occasions, so believe me I do get it. I have real life friends (not on this board) who are BBs fans too, who also very understandably begrudge Mike for all sorts of stuff, and they also understandably aren't rushing out to heap praise on the guy for any particular reason whatsoever. So believe me - I understand that. It's not some alien concept to me. There are many fans of this band who hate his guts, and he's earned that many times over.

However, I just think that my earlier post above has some merit nonetheless, don't you think?

Unless you're gonna tell me that there are musical/lyrical problems with Kiss Me Baby, Warmth of The Sun, etc, I don't see how it can be said with a straight face that Mike never added anything decent to the band. The guy can regularly act like a total turd, be a credit-hogging, sue-happy, narcissistic greedy jerk - and still have contributed at least *some* undeniably solid contributions to the band in the early years.  Even assuming he contributed just a few parts of those songs (I have no idea what percentage of the lyrics on those songs were Mike's), there's not IMHO a single thing that is subpar with anything on them, so I don't get how anyone can't at least say the guy did good some of the time (even if it's just a small portion of the total timespan of this band).

It's complicated to reconcile, of course.

Wasn’t Mike the “hook” guy for certain songs?

It's not "opinion" when you bully another poster out of the blue.  Also when you say that Mike Love's ultimate goal is to prove that he is as talented as Brian Wilson, that is about as "opinion" as saying that global warming is a hoax that was created by the Chinese. 

Hey, don’t pee on the dude’s rug, man.

Didn't know you were Donny's security guard. Hey look man, if it's a big internet battle your lookin' for, your barking up the wrong tree. Unlike you, it's just not as important to me as it appears to be to you. If you think I'm bullying someone than ok. I didn't try to start a fire here and regardless of what you may think, my intent wasn't to bully Donny or anyone else. Quite frankly, I have the feeling that you haven't the slightest concept of what a real bully is, internet or a real time situation. If I remember correctly, you're not the most thought of poster here either.

This isn't about me, I'm not looking for a "battle" or whatever, I am just calling you a bully and you are stubbornly doubling down on yourself and trying to shine light elsewhere, like bullies usually do.  My point is made.  Peace

OMG - this is my favorite post. Thanks for the levity.
Once again I have been schooled a bit by the members of this site. Thanks all, positive or negative.
Here's my response which pertains what interested me about the book and why I stick to the fact that it is in fact, engaging and entertaining.
Also why I refer to Mike Love as the "glue" that kept that band together.

 I've been in the management business, show business, the film business and the entertainment world since my early 20s managing talent, producing pics overseeing a publishing company, making records, blah, blah. I'm hardly a big shot, but I know the territory. One of my buddies back when I was producing a 2ed feature film,  after I told him that my producer's fee was either already spent or spoken for, before we had ever shot a frame of footage, said, and I'll never forget it, "Yes, but you have a wealth of experience." Ha. That and 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
There was wisdom in what he said and I've gained plenty more experience since.
The fact that the BB are still around, unlike the Beatles or Jimmy Hendricks, for instance, is a show business miracle in many ways. It's not just the music!
It took a masterful continuity of spirit to keep that Band current. They're still playing. There was no Berry Gordy or Motown machine buoying them up, changing band members, owning the group name with interchangeable parts.That is impressive. Take it from someone who knows and understands the territory.
I'm not fawning over Mike Love. I'm tipping my hat to the guy that was there, day in, day out for 50 years. Hey, Al Jardine. My hat's off to you as well.
Like I said, I have enormous respect for everyone in the book.

That's what the book is partly is about and that's why I say it is entertaining and engaging and a peek behind the veil. It's not just the music.

Hey Renaldo! "I'm not fawning over Mike Love"??? ??? He's the "glue" that kept the band together??? Obviously, you still believe in The Tooth Fairy. He fired Al Jardine twice (the best voice in the group to date) and after Carl passed away. How is that keeping the group together. He fired Brian Wilson!! And, on top of all that, he thinks he is the Beach Boys. Nice slap in the face at both the Wilson brothers and Al who all were infinitely more talented than he will ever be. Get a grip, man.  : ::) ::)

CD, I apologize for not responding in a timely manner. I was busy with trying to convince a poster that I wasn't a bully. Imagine that! I've got to say how much I enjoy your insightful posts and consider you and GF my favorite posters and fans. You guys always nail it for me. In trying like hell to address your posts about Mike Love's contributions to the band, I don't think I'm qualified to supply a legitimate, unbiased answer that you're looking for from me. As a young kid listening to them in the early to mid60's, I didn't care about who was who and what they did. I only knew that I liked Brian's singing and was attracted to the tunes. I guess I was all of about 15 or 16 and what in the world did I know about anything except maybe about the music I liked and being on the high school wrestling team and taking my girlfriend to the drive in on weekends. Some world, huh? Of course as time went on, my fascination with Brian was on a growth spurt. These melodies were mind boggling and had difficulty in understanding how someone could create like he did. The lyrics were somewhat secondary and seemed like a necessity, but I often read the label credit and wondered if Brian had the lyrics in his head and maybe Mike helped fleshed them out a bit with Brian, who was always intimidated by Mike, gave in and gave Mike the credit. It's a case of not trusting the integrity of the lovester. The tunes you speak of were no doubt classic but always seemed like Brian's original thoughts that were really Brian's idea from the beginning and knowing the predatory nature of Mike, Brian caved and gave him credit with Love only adding a line here and a line there similar to Wouldn't It Be Nice. My take on Mike is that he was an insane opportunist who relied on the incredible naivety of Brian during those golden years. Add that to all that has gone down between then and now and I end up with a person in my favorite band of all time that I just can't feel anything but extreme disgust and dislike.

OSD harkens back to a simple premise - a time when I would listen to music, and  form my opinion of that music based solely on how it sounded to me.  I didn't know or care who wrote any or all of the music, who wrote any or all of the lyrics, who sang any or all of the vocals, who produced any or all of the whole work. But we get into knowing more and more about each piece of music and it's participants, sometimes to the detriment of enjoyment of the music.  We get into "that song has so-and-so's name on the credits, so I don't like it because I don't like so-and-so". I frequently wonder if many of the posters on sites such as this are actually fans of the MUSIC, or if they're merely fans of all the DRAMA behind the music.

I think that it would be difficult not to get into the drama especially if you've been a dire fan of a group for, say, 5-10 years or so. Now imagine if you've been a fan of the music for a 50+ span, there's no way to escape that drama which seeps into the music compliments of the internet which we did not have when we were quite young. And, if the music is done by a group with five different personalities and lifestyles, yes the drama can be sometimes as fascinating as the music itself. Does that make any sense?

That makes perfect sense to me.  I get it.

I cant argue with your opinion. But your comment in a way makes exactly my point. The BBs still exist, and the one guy who's kept them there in the public consciousness is for low these many decades is, in fact, Mike Love. You and the knowledgeable and learned people on this site know all the back story of the group, but you exist in knowlegdable rarified air. The reason the band is still alive and still exists to the rank and file out there on Planet Earth is the one and only "Mike Love."
Credit where credit is due.
When I came aboard this project I was one of the multitude. I knew none of what is common history to those of you here. But I knew of the Beach Boys.
They were still alive in the world's view of the music scene, as a group, playing that miraculous and wonderful material. It wasn't just music on the radio, THEY WERE STILL OUT THERE. THE BEACH BOYS STILL EXISTED, STILL PLAYED, STILL LIVED AS A BAND in the public consciousness, ignorant public consciousness perhaps, but they were and even are, STILL THERE.
I was in the music and entertainment business most of my life. That is a rare and laudable accomplishment no matter how it happened. Ask yourself who was the one common denominator the the whole friggin time?
You may not like the answer but there is only one answer.

Ok, but did the band's legacy which was forged years ago really need Mike Love to keep the legacy going? I mean look at The Beatles. Their place in history was set in granite. Did Ringo hire some random musicians and tour as The Beatles to keep the legacy alive? I don't think so. It would have ended up as an embarrassment to the name and that is what the lovester is doing with the BB name only far more destructive. Stamos anyone? ::) ::) ::)

Ron - I'd to comment on something you wrote here earlier, especially the quote in bold:



Specifically the lines "changing band members, owning the group name with interchangeable parts"

This is EXACTLY what happened with Mike Love after Carl Wilson's passing, starting around 1998 when the vote from BRI gave Mike the option to buy the naming license to tour and bill his tours as "The Beach Boys".

In the past 21 years, Mike has continued to tour under that naming license with changing band members, while owning the group name with interchangeable parts. His various "Beach Boys" bands have existed with numerous sidemen who have come and gone through these past decades, who have also been billed under different titles for Mike's corporate or private gigs (names like "Endless Summer Beach Band" or whatever), and who have run for the past 20 years with one truly original member (Mike) and one who joined in 1965 then came and went several times until signing on permanently with Mike (Bruce Johnston).

That's been what "The Beach Boys" are for 20 years. Mike did exactly what you said the Beach Boys avoided...bought the name, changed band members off and on, and in your own wording, Mike "owned the group name with interchangeable parts". It has only been Mike Love as the sole original member and Bruce Johnston who joined later as the two constants since 1998 when Mike purchased the license to use the brand name.

So how does that add up with what you said earlier?

Adding this: The one time since Carl's passing where there was what I think all fans would consider the real, true, 100% authentic "Beach Boys" on the market and making music live and in studio was 2012 when they did the 50th anniversary (C50) tour and album. This was all surviving members from the Hawthorne days in the Wilsons' music room, plus Bruce Johnston who became a valuable member in 1965, performing together as "The Beach Boys".

Special contracts, exemptions, and even a new LLC was formed in order to make this happen separate from the licenses and contracts which gave Mike sole rights to bill under the brand name.

Fans loved it. The venues became larger, the live touring industry came calling with offers for more, the band was "back" in every sense of the word.  They even scored a top-5 album of 100% new material and no hokey remakes or covers. It was one of the hottest tours of 2012, and it was for many an improbable success story and comeback.

Then, for reasons you'll have to sort out on your own terms, Mike Love decided he didn't want to do this anymore. He went back to playing his low-to-mid level shows with *his* band and Bruce. He left Brian, Al, and David Marks behind...and those three original members decided to tour together on their own. As Brian said in a now infamous interview "It felt like I'd been fired".

So that's the deal, and it's only giving a thumbnail sketch of all that played out.

But needless to say, it isn't the picture you painted in your comments above about how Mike Love kept the band rolling along without issues that plagued other name acts from the 60's era and beyond.

In fact, under Mike, The Beach Boys were and have been exactly the band with the same scenarios of interchangeable parts, changing band members and sidemen, and haggles over name ownership that you credit Mike for not turning the Beach Boys into that. Well, he did, and it did.


PS...If you're tipping the hat to Al Jardine, tip it also to Brian Wilson who has been touring for the past 20 years and just recently saw his "Pet Sounds" tour post better numbers than Mike's "Beach Boys" tour...and Al Jardine has been playing with Brian for the majority of those tours these past 20 years, now joined by former Beach Boy Blondie Chaplin as well.

You just don't get it man. Just because he kept the "name" out there doesn't mean he did any good. Seeing him and his band on the CW channel doing his solo tunes isn't doing The Beach Boys name any good. And honestly, why are The Beach Boys really in the public consciousness since Carl died, Al was kicked out and Brian basically quit working within the group framework in the late '90s? Here's why (in roughly chronological fashion)...

Brian touring. Obviously this was a big deal. Nobody thought Brian would really end up being a road warrior. And now look!

The Stamos movie. This kept them in the popular conscience, but not necessarily in a great way. Definitely reinforced the "Brian as a zombie" from the SMiLE sessions and onward theory. But regardless, it did get some people interested in the group again surely, which can't be a bad thing.

Pet Sounds. The legend has grown and grown. You had The Pet Sounds Sessions set in 1997 and things have kept going since then. And you have Brian touring it in the early 2000s.

Sounds of Summer. This was a big, unexpected hit in 2003. The Beatles had 1 and that did great and The Beach Boys followed it with their own compilation and did big business as well. If somebody was to say this didn't matter to the Boys trajectory post '98, well....they're wrong.

Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE. 2004 was huge as far as the name Brian Wilson (and therefore The Beach Boys) was concerned. Just as Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy and Dr. Dre's Compton made their mark in 2008 and 2015 respectively, it was a huge story that The Beach Boys resident songwriter was finally completing and performing his lost masterpiece. And then the album. Highest Beach Boys chart placement since, what, 15 Big Ones?

Mike Love and Bruce Johnston touring. Yes it matters. But not to the extent Ronnie Raygun puts it. It's good for some spots in the local newspaper and a ticket giveaway on your local sh*t-rock station, but beyond that nothing. Really nothing. There's really no word of mouth among the world at large about Mike and Bruce Beach Boys shows.

The SMiLE Sessions. Obviously this was huge as well. It's The Beach Boys version of SMiLE and then some. There wasn't any way this wasn't gonna be a hit.

The reunion and That's Why God Made The Radio. This is where it all coalesced and I'd say The Beach Boys as an entity were at their highest recognition since...what? 1976? 1989? Regardless, this is where The Beach Boys name should be. And what happens you ask? The guy who is "keeping the band together" and "keeping it going" decided to rip the band apart, freezing out the songwriter and another founding member, along with their guitarist. So yeah, thanks Mikey boy!

 
A lot of inconvenient truths by GF and Jim V. must make it tough for anyone who is trying to do pro-Mike spin here.
Any defender of this stuff has got to feel somewhat like Rudy Giuliani right about now :lol

Ron, you keep telling us how knowledgeable the members of this board are in regards to the Beach Boys (with the exception of yours truly), then repeatedly tell us how you should have the final say on Mike Love's importance to the history of the band. 

It's almost like you decided to go on this site with expectations of a totally positive reaction from the "experts", but then stubbornly refuse to validate the negatives pointed out by those same experts.

Thanks, OSD for the reply. I appreciate your honesty and self-reflective comments about being unbiased. That's big of you to admit. I don’t have 50+ years of fandom of this band (more like 20), and I’m glad you at least realize that it can be next to impossible for some people to divorce their feelings about a person’s behavior with being able to objectively give them praise for artistic contributions. All I can say is that I do understand and partially share some of your thoughts, although I think the truth falls somewhere more in the middle.

(Side note: if only the hardcore Mike defenders could let down their guard a bit and be as honest and self-reflective as OSD was, then maybe we'd have world peace)

Either way, it’s incredibly unfortunate that Mike grabbed for credit on songs like WIBN, which only further eroded at any benefit of the doubt that his detractors might have still been willing to give him.  I really wonder if he thinks it was worth it to grab for credit on that song when the result was having even more people doubt the honesty of his intentions on getting proper credit on songs in general (those that he truly deserved credit on). The sad thing is, he probably does think it’s worth it.  Mike, like a certain moron who's in the news all the time now, doesn't ever seem to self-reflect or apologize/regret anything whatsoever.

Mike was indeed screwed over by Murry (and Brian being complicit) and while he *should* have a lot of public empathy over that fact, he doesn’t for a variety of reasons (including the WIBN credit grab)… IMO part of the screwjob Mike endured could be Brian acting passive aggressively towards someone who was bullying him. I will to my last breath never understand how someone could deny Mike has acted like a bully to Brian. It seems pretty textbook to me. One doesn’t have to be Biff Tannen with fists to be an emotionally bullying, coercive individual.

Personally I think Mike has undeniable talent and has contributed some great stuff, but the amount of lame behavior that he’s exhibited over the years can really, really give people reasons to not want to give the guy his due. Denying Mike his due I believe is a toxic thing too, but I at the same time get that it’s human nature to *not* want to give somebody praise when they outright ask for it, the way he does; he seemingly never learned the lesson that this is not how things work, disgruntled as he may be about certain things.

In any event, getting back to the topic at hand, it’s absolutely laughable to try and reconcile Rocky’s posts and the tone of the book. I mean, there’s literally no amount of explaining about fear of lawsuits (understandable as that may be) that can give a project legitimacy when it started from a series of posts with a tone that is as different from the final product, as say, the tone/vibe of "Surf’s Up" is to "Summer of Love"... or "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" to "Rockin' The Man in the Boat"... from avant garde, boundary-pushing content to a tune literally about stroking the salami. Based on the portions Ron has posted of the book so far, it seems to be THAT level a difference in presentation and content compared to what Rocky teased on this board. As different as night and day, to quote the Patty Duke theme song.

Unfortunate for Ron to be caught up in this type of thing, but this should come as no surprise. You can’t tease a trailer of the 1976 film “Network”, and have the final product be “Police Academy 6” without people being dissatisfied. That was an extreme analogy, but I'm honestly trying to think of any book/film/music/tv project that turned out more differently than this one from its initial origins. I guess this book is the literal definition of Production/Development Hell.

I'm sure Ron tried his best, but it's an unenviable position to be in.

By the way, fantastic post Jim V. !! Enjoyed that immensely! Thank you!

Looks like Rocky’s book got a write-up in the “Palisadian Post”: https://www.palipost.com/surfs-up/. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to get past the paywall.

Finally someone says it as it really is....Mike...and the "b" word.

Century Deprived explains the actual relationship.................and therefore no wonder Brian no longer submits to the victim role such  " b's" requure

.

Unfortunately this is not the first time such sentiments have been expressed, in fact the very same sentiments expressed by CD, Jim, and others here about Mike's various actions and behaviors in the past few decades especially has been brought out many times in discussions here. Ultimately, all that CD, Jim, myself, and others did was lay out the facts as they stand. No spin, no whitewashing, not stretching of the truth, just the facts of what happened. The pathetic part is how some tried to paint anything of the sort as "Mike bashing", "toxic", etc...as in, throw anything that either paints Mike in an unfavorable light or counters what some have tried to portray apart from the truth as "hate", "toxic", "bashing", "derangement", and other similar terms.

What struck me is how the saga of the Beach Boys, of Mike and his bands since 1998, of Brian, of Al, and especially of the C50 details have been written, spoken, hashed, and rehashed so many times over...Yet, here was Ron forming opinions and making statements of fact that suggest something other than a basic awareness of how it all played out, as recent as the events of 2012, and events which have been well documented. It's either being unaware, or choosing not to acknowledge it.

The most inconvenient truth of them all is that Mike had a chance to continue working with the other surviving Beach Boys in 2012, and he and he alone made the decision not to do that. Mike could have kept it plugged in, but instead he pulled the plug. And since Fall 2012 it has been a literal shitstorm of backpedaling, excuse-making, whitewashing, and even having supporters and defenders of Mike's taking to various outlets to reshape the history and accuse people of hatefulness and toxicity...when the real examples of that can be found by them looking in the mirror.

So it's sad, and beyond that it's sad to think how many fans or run-of-the-mill observers who do not have Ron's background in the entertainment business and who did not research and write a book might think events happened other than they really did.

:pirate :rock :happydance :bow :thumbsup :woot

Can you give some specific examples?

Specific examples?  Good gawd!!!  Do we really have to relive 6 + years of multiple ass-hole interview remarks, a dumb-ass auto-biography and piss poor album releases, of rediculous TV appearances with wannabe boy 'John' taking [almost] centre stage every 4th of July, of rubbing the same old salt into the same old wounds and, as a result, sadly retracing the denigration of a once illustrious name/brand?

Anyone with 1/2 a page of knowledge pertaining to the Sand Pail Sailors knows that ol' [and I do mean OLD] Money-Bags Mikey tours with the name only because it is LICENSED to him.  That he has Bruce tagging along for some semblance of cred is rather suspect.  Anyone referring back to that half page will recognize that the REAL Beach Boys tour with Brian...and Al...and Blondie.

'Pinch your nose and sing boy' was there along the long and illustrious path to glory [and the Rock 'n' Toll Hall of Fame]...sho-nuff...but generally?  Only from the waist down.  

And now?  That path needs to be weeded, stooped and scooped.

Meanwhile the thread about an artificial book, devoid of fact, labors on.  Unbelievable.  It's a sh*t in/sh*t out scenario.  Time to flush and lock the door behind you.

Two more "5 Star" reviews of the book are up on Amazon this week. 

Thanks everyone for weighing in, at least those who did. I'm gonna stick to my guns here and acknowledge all the conflicting views as well. So much has been said about the current Beach Boys, how they got here, who was responsible in both good and bad ways, whether their shows measure up to their salad days, all of that, but once again, that's sort of my point. I cannot defend my position or opinion, but only offer the FACT that if someone wants to see and hear the band, they can. Can't say that about the Beatles. Right? That, in show business terms and history is a miraculous fact. How that happens and why that happens is down to one guy. I just have to tip my hat to him.
Don't know the guy, but I hope to. I'd like to spend some time practicing TM with him. We've both been at that for decades. There's something about that continuity, that perhaps savage tenacity, that made that happen. It's remarkable. One guy.
I remember the last shot in one of my favorite movies, "Papillion" (sp) where Steve McQueen is floating away from Devil's island on a raft of coconuts, something like that, and he says jubilantly, defiantly, and almost triumphantly, "I'm still here." For me, gotta luv it.
Even if you get beat up by someone like Muhammad Ali, as this site is, in its way, probably the greatest, even with the bruises exemplifying your shortcomings after the brawl, don't you think you strut your stuff a bit ? Ahh, I wax poetic as writers will.

As for me not being in an enviable position? I am in an enviable position and most certainly consider myself as such. For better, as may be proven elsewhere, or for worse, as is often the case on this site, I'm in the game with one of the greatest bands of all time. How I got there, perhaps due to foolishness or naivety, or whatever else doesn't matter anymore. The games a foot. The Book exists.
Thanks to all of you. I'll take my lumps, proudly, deservedly if you will, but "I'm still here." Glad for it.
Now go buy the book. Heh heh heh.

Thanks for posting the Palasadian Post article, btw, who ever that was. Can an 8 part mini series be far behind? There's an uproar in the making. wheee

Thanks for referencing that. How'd you like it? I'm learning, often with shock and awe, that what we think is happening may not be what's happening at all.

There's been a lot strange things in this thread but for me the top two are,

1. That a published author is uncertain how to spell the name of one of his favourite movies
2. That he doesn't check the correct spelling, which would take about 10 seconds on Google, before posting it

I'll post it here for you guys. One cannot get past the paywall without subscribing for $30.00 to get a pdf. Now lets see if I can get it to post on Smile. I've had little luck before.

Can someone instruct me as to how to post that review for Smile. It's a pdf icon. Thanks

Thanks for correcting what is indeed a dumb mistake. Sheesh. Can't get a break around here. Ha. Luckily I got close enough on the mistaken movie title to get my point across. The BB are still here and it is because of Mike Love, for better or for worse, but that's the fact.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

As for being a published author unable to spell? Thanks, got a giggle out of that. If those are the "Top Two" messes I've made in the thread, I've come up in the Smile world, eh? I've can say with relief I've been called much much worse, so thank you for the kind compliment. Wheee

Did you even read what I wrote? It seems like you are clueless. If we are talking about there being a band out on the road named "The Beach Boys" because of Mike Love, sure, I'll buy that. But as far as the group being anywhere near pop culture...once again, here are the reasons they've mattered since we lost Carl...


If you disagree with this, fine. But if you're gonna go and do that, prove me wrong. Don't just say "hey man, Mike is why the Beach Boys still matter and fuckk you if you disagree."

Jim, you apparently don't "get it".  Ron has years of experience in show biz, so that outweighs the piddly knowledge of people on this board.  The idea that Brian is the main reason for the Beach Boys "mattering" is delusional, as only Ron knows.  Mike has the brand name, so that's all that matters. It may be true that Ron has no actual experience with the group, but that isn't important.  Ron knows Rocky, so that's enough to make him an expert on the legacy of the Beach Boys.

Now I'm going to meditate...

Mtaber "gets" it! ;D

Haha. In times like this I wish there was a like button. That was good!

Mtaber rocks! LuHv the "tongue in cheek" approach. Maybe someday Reynaldo will get religion concerning the crumbster lovester.

As does Jim V.!

Sadly this does not seem to have been the case.  :lol  Maybe we'll just keep reposting those inconvenient truths?

Funny how Ron's writing style is morphing into Rocky's...anyone else notice that ??  :police:

Rocky using a burner account? :hat

I suspected it waaay before you. :3d

I've thought it was him all along.

You guys are fun. I ain't Rocky. Simple as that. Those of you who think you figured it out sooner give me a giggle.
By the way I'd like to post the Palisadian Post review. Can someone instruct me as to how? I'd appreciate it.

You don't have to get insulting. I did not say or imply that Mike is the reason the BB still matter and I certainly did not say "f*#k you if you disagree. If someone wants to see the band that has been continuously on the road for 5 decades, it's because of Mike Love. There, I've proved you wrong.
I don't recall insulting anyone on this site except for the guys that took cheap shots at the book in a public forum. That was just rude and insulting and needless harm was caused. Calling my work a "waste of money" was hurtful. Perhaps you've had enough of me on this site.
Fair enough. I grow weary of some of you as well. But I repeat I never said "f*#k you" if you disagree.
My apologies to the rest of the Smile members for my part in engendering that kind of response.
I'm not Rocky by the way as I've said elsewhere. That's simply not true.
All The Best, Smilers. "I'm still here."

And again, I'd be pleased to post the Palisadian Review. Some of you may enjoy seeing it and without paying $30.00 for a subscription, that will not be possible.
If someone can instruct me as to how to post a PDF file on here, I'll put it up. Thanks.

But surely there is a difference between saying that "Because of Mike Love, people have been able to see the band for five decades" vs. saying "Because of Mike Love, people have wanted to see the band for five decades." Do you not see a distinction there?

I do not think I was insulting at all. In fact, I feel very insulted that you haven't deemed it appropriate to engage me in real conversation after I went point by point refuting your claim.

Now, lets get to your point about Mike Love. Your initial point was not "If someone wants to see the band that has been continuously on the road for 5 decades, it's because of Mike Love." It was more along the lines of, "The reason the band is still alive and still exists to the rank and file out there on Planet Earth is the one and only "Mike Love."

Now if you mean, that Mike Love is the only original Beach Boy that people can see perform as "The Beach Boys" then yes, you're correct. But even, the fact that you said the "reason the band is still alive and still exists" is to due Mike Love, that's incorrect. The reason Brian and Al, who are still legally Beach Boys can't tour with The Beach Boys is because Mike Love has paid to have the license. If Mike truly cared about "keeping the legacy alive" and bringing us the music "the way it should be" shouldn't he have allowed the main songwriter and also a very, very important voice to keep touring with him?

And if you say, he keeps the music out there....well, so does Brian and Al. And even David Marks. Though I have a feeling you don't know who David Marks is, so I'll let you know. He was in the group early on, played on quite a few hit singles and appeared on their first four albums, and also on the group's latest, 2012's That's Why God Made The Radio.

Also, you said something like, "the fact that the BB are still around, unlike the Beatles or Jimmy Hendricks, for instance, is a show business miracle in many ways. It's not just the music," is alluding to Mike Love touring I presume. And last I checked he's one guy. So by that reasoning, if Paul McCartney decided he wanted to tour as "The Beatles" starting next week would that mean that the group "The Beatles" were once again a real, current performing group? Because by your rationale, that's what this means. Also, who is Jimmy Hendricks?

Lastly, I for one do not care one iota about the Palisadian Review, though I wish you luck with your book and may at some point purchase a copy. Though I'm disappointed by all the mistakes I've heard about, I may still give it a chance.

Since Ron's problem with me is primarily connected to my posting a one-star rating on Amazon after only reading one chapter of the book, I think that everyone on this site who has read the entire book should go on Amazon and post their own rating. 

Of course, Ron only thinks the ratings are legitimate if the reviewer gives the book 5 stars. 

Mtaber, your newsletters deserve more stars.... ;D

Exactly, plus the patience of a saint to deal with Ro(n)cky...

Smile Brian - my newsletters would get 5 stars, but only on a scale of 1-100 stars! ;)

You're correct, read the full thing then give a review  :lol

Finally, something you and I can agree on. It deserves 5 stars, take my word for it. Of course I'm being facetious. However to call it a waste of money is just rude.
The time and effort Rocky, the editor, the publisher and Stan Love, who donated never before seen pics from his personal collection, put into this is nobody's waste of time or money.
We are never going to please the aficionados on this site when it comes to details or taste. You all are way above my pay grade in that arena. But I promise you the insights I brought to the bigger picture are based on years of show business experience in the record, film, management and publishing areas and they will be if interest if you keep an open mind. It was done with hard work and good intentions.

Yes I do and it is a valid one. People can still see the Temptations, hear their music, enjoy the brand and music associated with them. Not so bad. For purists, that may even be considered an insult. I get your point.

I think it's pretty funny how Reynaldo can boast about years of experience in the entertainment field, yet get literally every single thing wrong about the subject he's writing about. He can't even quote the correct lyrics to "Let It Be", a song by arguably the most famous and well known musical group in the world.